Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Bank of Scotland, presented by Mr. James Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (DISPUTE)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consult the Governor and the Government of the Gold Coast with a view to encouraging an early publication of the report made by the committee under Nene Aze Mate Korle on the matters at issue between the Brong Kyempen Federation and Asanteman Council; and if he will take all possible steps to facilitate an early settlement of the issues involved.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I have consulted the Government of the Gold Coast. They consider that the publication of the report, at least for the present, would hinder rather than help a settlement. The decision is, of course, one for them.

Sir R. Acland: One appreciates that a decision has to be taken on the Gold Coast; but would the Minister consider whether there is anything he can do indirectly to use his good offices to promote an early and friendly settlement in what is a rather long-standing matter in dispute?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a very ancient quarrel, but if we are to make a reality of granting self-government, it is the sort of issue which they must settle themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Agricultural Corporation

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give an assurance that all substantial racial groups in Tanganyika will be represented on the Board of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, and that it will be the policy of the Board to prohibit racial discrimination in its service, to train Africans progressively for the higher grades of service, to aim at progressively raising standards of living in its service, and to encourage the promotion of cooperative organisations amongst Africans.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The composition of the Board and its policy will be primarily matters for the Tanganyika Government. I am sure the Governor will have very much in mind the kind of consideration to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.

Korogwe Township (Land Leases)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the conditions under which Africans in the Korogwe township of Tanganyika may be allowed 33 years' lease for land which they occupy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Africans may acquire leases for 33 years or longer in the Korogwe township provided they conform with the requirements of the town plan as to the use of the land, the erection of buildings and payment of a small annual rent.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular township, if an African is occupying a plot of land, unless he has upon it a building or buildings to the value of £1,000, he will not get the lease, and it is very difficult for most Africans, only earning at the most 5s. a day, to acquire buildings of this value?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Africans can have shorter term leases.

Washambala Tribe (Usambara District)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the circumstances in which members of the Washambala tribe have been required to leave their territory in Tanganyika and to live in the jungle.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Wasambaa living in the Usambara Mountains where overcrowding and overstocking has resulted in serious soil erosion. A development scheme, in which the local native authorities are cooperating, aims at stopping cultivation on the steepest slopes and developing the plains for food production and eventual settlement. No members of the tribe have been required to leave their territory or live "in the jungle."

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN TERRITORIES

Inter-territorial Consultations

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider holding another African conference, similar to that held in London in 1948.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The opportunities for inter-territorial consultation have improved considerably since 1948, and I do not consider that a repetition of the 1948 conference would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Johnson: Would the Minister agree that the last conference was a huge success and an enormous inspiration to the African people? Does he not think that there is still a need for a get together of the people to discuss African education and African agriculture besides the more important issues of constitutional development?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I readily agree that the 1948 Conference was very valuable indeed. It was held in the after-math of war to consider the problems

then thrown up, and since the war we have had a number of regional conferences. But I will always bear it in mind and there is nothing final about my answer.

Mr. Brockway: May I congratulate the right hon. Member upon his new appointment and ask whether he considers that the present situation warrants a discussion with representatives of the colonial peoples just as much as the situation after the war; and if he would consider following the precedent of his predecessor and inviting not merely representatives of the Legislative Councils but representatives of popular organisations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly intend to follow all the many good examples set by my noble predecessor. While thanking the hon. Member for his congratulations, may I tell him that we are having talks all the time and that I hope to pay as many visits to the Colonies as he and other hon. Members will allow me.

Education

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the annual Governmental expenditure upon education per child in the population among Africans, Asians and Europeans, respectively, in Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia; and for what percentage of the school-age children of each of these populations education is provided.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since the answer contains a large number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It does not include figures concerning the education of Asians and Europeans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, which has now become the responsibility of the Federation.

Mr. Greenwood: Do the figures show that whereas every European child in Kenya gets education, only one in three Africans receives it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman had better wait to read my answer.

Following is the information:

Table I gives the gross cost and Table II the net cost after deduction of revenue from fees chargeable. Table III gives percentages of the school-age children enrolled.

TABLE I


—
Kenya
Uganda
Tanganyika
Nyasaland
Northern Rhodesia





£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.



African
…
£3 0s. 0d. primary tuition; £60 15s. 0d. secondary (combined cost of boarding and tuition).
7
12
0
5
7
0
1
8
11
Gross figures cannot be provided.


Asian
…
£18 4s. 0d. primary tuition; £38 6s. 0d. secondary tuition.
23
15
7
16
16
0
—
—


European
…
£49 6s. 0d. primary tuition; £102 6s. 0d. primary boarding; £104 18s. 0d. secondary tuition; £111 12s. 0d. secondary boarding.
113
2
5
132
0
0
—
—

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance for the continuation of their education has been given by his Department of students from East and Central

Africa resident at universities in South Africa who have been given notice by the Government of South Africa that they must leave after concluding their next examinations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member's description does not accord with my information, which is that, after adequate notice had been given, the South African universities ceased to admit new non-European students from East Africa from 1st January last whilst allowing students admitted earlier to complete their courses. Some East Africans who were studying for South African matriculation after failing at their own schools are therefore now unable to gain admission to universities in the Union, but their own Governments are considering means of assisting them and I am sure will do so sympathetically.

Mr. Greenwood: May I point out that my information was that Africans were told that they had to leave on the completion of their next examination although that was not necessarily a final examination? Can the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter further, if there are cases of that kind, to see whether help can be given to get them either to Makerere or to a university in this country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am satisfied with the accuracy of the answer I have given, but I will look into any case of hardship caused to any individual.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the figures of expenditure, or estimated expenditure in 1953–54 and 1954–55 on higher education for Africans in Northern Rhodesia, Kenya and Tanganyika, respectively; and the ratios between these figures and total revenues in each year in each Colony.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a serious review of these figures? Does he appreciate that they reveal that the facilities for higher education for Africans in these Colonies are totally inadequate? Does he appreciate that the Kenya Government do need prodding on this subject?

Following are the figures:
In the financial year 1953 actual expenditure on higher education for Africans in Kenya and Tanganyika was £108,893 and £83,155 respectively. For 1954–55 estimated figures for these territories are £147,075 and £112,893, respectively. The ratios are: Kenya, 1953–0·556 per cent., 1954–55–0·724 per cent.;

Tanganyika, 1953–0·5 per cent., 1954–55–0·75 per cent. These figures include expenditure on Makerere College and the Royal Technical College, which are both designed to provide higher education for members of all races, but the majority of students at Makerere are Africans. Higher education in Northern Rhodesia is now a Federal responsibility.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consult the Government of Northern Rhodesia about the level of school fees for African parents with a view to finding ways and means of reducing them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Tuition is free in all African schools in Northern Rhodesia. For boarders the maximum payable by parents is £5 per annum, plus £3 for uniform. Proportionate or total remission may be granted in cases of necessity by assistance from Native Authorities or other sources.

Government Services (African Stenographers)

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will recruit Africans as stenographers in Government service in East Africa, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Stenographers are recruited locally, so far as possible, by the Governments of the territories concerned. They try to recruit suitably qualified Africans, but very few are forthcoming for such posts at present.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what arrangements he has in mind to ensure that suitable training facilities are made available?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are quite a lot of training facilities. I will send details to the hon. Gentleman.

Medical Services (Expenditure)

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the annual Government expenditure on medical services per capita for the African, Asian and European populations, respectively, in Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since Government medical services in these territories are organised for the benefit of the community irrespective of race it is impossible to give per capita details of


expenditure separately for the African, Asian and European populations. Health services in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia have now become a Federal responsibility.

Social Security Schemes

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what Government social services, covering sickness, unemployment, old age and children's allowances are provided in Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia; and what is the expenditure of their respective Governments upon them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Member is referring to social security schemes providing cash benefits in the contingencies mentioned in his Question, none exist except a limited old-age pension scheme in Northern Rhodesia: but the social services provided by these Governments include, of course, free or subsidised medical and hospital services, poor relief from public funds and employment exchanges, except in Nyasaland. Legislation also covers workmen's compensation and the provision of sick benefits by employers.

Mr. Benn: Can the Minister say what plans he has to inform these Governments that apparently it is the object of Her Majesty's Government to encourage social and economic advances of this kind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Anybody who has had dealings with these Governments knows that there is no need to prod them on the matter. They have it constantly in their view.

National Income Statistics

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the per capita income, including an allowance for subsistence goods, for Africans, Asians and Europeans in Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: National income calculations have been published for Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Kenya and Uganda, and plans are being made for estimating the national income of Tanganyika. I regret, however, that in no case are the data sufficiently detailed

to provide a reliable analysis of per capita income between the several racial groups.

Mr. Craddock: Will the Minister make it his business to try to secure this information? It is very important.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly hope that as we go along in colonial improvement these and other vital figures will be available.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Minister aware that in the social survey published by the United Nations per capita figures are given for the racial groups in a number of the countries mentioned in the Question? Will he bring that information up to date?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite prepared to reply. The answer is as I have stated. The figures in the various United Nations publications relate to national income per head, including estimates for subsistence output in certain territories. In the absence of the necessary data, I am afraid that it is impossible to give an analysis of per capita income between the several racial groups, which is what I have been asked for.

Mr. Brockway: But the United Nations does it.

Economic and Land Reforms (Commission's Report)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions have been reached by Her Majesty's Government on the recommendations of the Commission on economic and land reforms in East Africa.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the report of the Royal Commission on Economic and Land Reforms in East Africa has yet been received; and when it is to be published.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The report of the Commission has not yet been submitted. I had expected to receive it before the end of the year, but I now understand it is unlikely to be completed until early next year.

Mr. J. Griffiths: What is the reason for this delay? It was generally understood that the Commission has completed its report and that the report has been submitted to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is certainly nothing sinister in the delay. Very many busy people are involved. A mass of evidence has been taken and the Commission is now engaged on writing the Report. I am satisfied that there are very good reasons why it cannot be ready before.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Anti-Sedition and Press Laws

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the terms of the anti-sedition law in Cyprus promulgated at the beginning of August.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will allow newspapers in Cyprus to print reports of speeches or Questions in this House which advocate the right of the people of Cyprus to self-determination; and if he will allow British newspapers which do so to be sold in that Colony;
(2) why the "News Chronicle" of 4th August, 1954, was withheld from sale in Cyprus under the terms of the anti-sedition law; and what other British newspapers have been affected by this law.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the enforcement of the anti-sedition law in Cyprus, under which publishers and vendors of printed matter which advocates a change of sovereignty may be imprisoned for long terms or lose their British nationality, and newspapers may be suspended for three years, was announced with his authority.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state the measures which have recently been enforced for the restriction of the expression of opinion in Cyprus.

Mr. Wade: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to repeal or relax the existing laws in Cyprus restricting freedom of speech, freedom of the Press and liberty of the subject.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am taking the opportunity of the Governor's presence in London to discuss with him the points raised in these Questions. As I have not

had time since my return to this country to go over the ground fully with him, I propose, with the hon. Members' permission, to make a statement on this aspect of Cyprus affairs next week.

Mr. Greenwood: In the meantime, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that many people think it is inconsistent to offer the Cypriots a constitutional Government with one hand while, with the other, imposing upon them very repressive legislation which makes it illegal for newspapers to print speeches by the Archbishop or by right hon. and hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that he and his hon. Friends on their side will bear in mind that there has been no new legislation, and that the only legislation is that which was current during the previous Socialist Government.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the statement yesterday by the Prime Minister clarifying a previous statement made on this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in considering the question of Cyprus, he will consider the suggestion I ventured to put forward in the debate in July and discuss it with the Governor.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, I will certainly do that, but I must point out that the remark attributed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday by, I think, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), that Cyprus could never enjoy self-government, is completely untrue, as a reference to HANSARD will show.

Mr. Hale: Though I do not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman on his first appearance in his present office, may I ask him to say why he said that he would answer Question No. 49 with this one and then made no reference to the matter raised in Question No. 49, which asks him to state, quite briefly, the measures which have recently been enforced for the restriction of opinion in Cyprus?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said, I will answer that Question next week along with other Questions dealing with sedition and the Press laws.

Mr. Wade: Without wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman at this stage, may I ask whether, in considering the enforcement of the anti-sedition laws, he will keep in mind the importance of maintaining our reputation in the world as a liberal minded nation?

Mr. Driberg: Since the right hon. Gentleman gave me the lie, may I ask him if he will look more closely at HANSARD, when he will find that the word "never" was used apropos of Cyprus by the Minister of State? He has probably been misled by the fact that his predecessor did not know that, and came into the debate later and wrongly denied that the word "never" had been used.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I took the earliest opportunity of correcting a misapprehension under which the hon. Gentleman obviously laboured. My right hon. Friend was referring to self-determination and not to self-government, and that was made plain.

Constitutional Proposals

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the progress made towards implementing the proposed new constitution for Cyprus.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The constitutional proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs on 28th July need close examination on many points of substance and detail before they can be put into final form. The Governor is considering these points, and I await his recommendations.

Mr. Wyatt: Will there be some explanation how self-government can be exercised without self-determination, and, since Cyprus is to be a kind of "Never-Never Land," will there also be some explanation of the constitutional use of the word "never," or are we to take it that the Government's policy towards the use of that word is the same as that of Humpty Dumpty?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman had better await the statement.

Mr. Strachey: Does not the Secretary of State realise that, whoever did or did not use the word "never," the present policy of the Government in regard to Cyprus is making a mockery of the

world-wide policy of this country, which is to have a voluntary association of nations within the Commonwealth, and not a compulsory one?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would find it very difficult to know how the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile that question with the way in which his Government disregarded the plebiscite held in Cyprus during their administration.

Mr. Brooman-White: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that any steps towards constitutional advance must be of benefit to all sections of the community in Cyprus?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly.

Mr. Driberg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise how impossible it is to impose a constitution on a people who are, at the same time, being deprived even of the usual democratic right of discussing their own sovereignty?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I wish the hon. Gentleman had used his time in Cyprus in encouraging people to come in and help to work the constitution rather than some of the things he did

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Casualties

Mrs. Slater: asked the Secretary for the Colonies (1) the number of Europeans and Africans, respectively, who have been killed and wounded in Kenya by Mau Mau adherents, exclusive of those killed and wounded in military action, since the beginning of the emergency; and
(2) the number of Mau Mau adherents and members of Government forces killed, wounded and taken prisoner, respectively, in Kenya, from the beginning of the emergency to the last available date; and the respective figures for Africans and Europeans among the latter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Up to 25th September 6,608 terrorists had been killed and 11,524 captured, of whom 727 were wounded. Casualties to the Security Forces were 476 killed (28 Europeans, 2 Asians and 446 Africans) and 426 wounded (55 Europeans, 12 Asians and 359 Africans). In addition, 25 Europeans, 18 Asians and 1,234 African civilians were murdered, and 24, 27 and 703, respectively, wounded by Mau Mau terrorists.

Detained Persons

Mrs. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of persons now held in detention in Kenya; and what is the number of these whose cases have been heard by the Advisory Appeal Committees.

Mr. W. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans are now detained in Kenya; and what plans have been made for the detention camps.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At the end of September the number was 48,022, including those held for screening as the result of the Nairobi operation as well as other persons temporarily in police custody for interrogation. Of the 17,435 persons against whom detention orders have been made, 724 have appealed to the Advisory Committees on Detainees, which have to date heard 642 cases.
My predecessor dealt with plans for the camps in his speech on 22nd July. I have nothing to add, except that the aim is, in the recent words of the Governor:
… to place as soon as possible on the road towards release those who are capable of being recalled to a decent life, and in the meantime to make the method of confinement such that it will lead to the least bitterness possible.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what action is being taken to speed up screening, because it is taking a very long time?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that it is taking so long now. It is very well under control.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some time to a consideration of this problem of detention in the future?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly. I am fully aware that the long-term future of Kenya is of the utmost importance.

Mr. J. Johnson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these detention camps are on the big side and that there are too many people in each camp? Does not he think that they should be taken out of the hands of the prison administration and put into those of another department under a committee of welfare or development, under Mr. Ohanga who is the African Minister?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Ohanga is doing a splendid job, but Kenya is living in a state of emergency. In all the circumstances, those concerned are doing admirably in coping with an unprecedented situation.

Evacuated Persons (Compensation)

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision has been made for persons in Kenya who may be compulsorily evacuated together with their livestock and property from specified areas in Kenya under new emergency powers which came into force on 3rd August, 1954; and what compensation will be given when livestock and movables are destroyed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Subsistence would be payable in cases of financial hardship, and ex gratia compensation based on need would be given for destroyed livestock and movables. No orders have yet been made under the Regulations, which are mainly designed to empower the removal to safety of elderly people living in isolated homes in danger areas.

Mr. Craddock: Does the Minister not think it would be better if precisely what is to happen was defined in the emergency powers, because at present people do not know?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No one can tell precisely how the situation will develop.

Long-term Policy

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in each of the social, economic and political reforms foreshadowed in the Kenya Government's statement of policy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The statement covered the whole field of government and embodied aims of long-term policy which are being pursued as part of a planned programme. I could not range so widely in answering this Question, but if there are any items on which the hon. Member requires information, perhaps he will put down a Question on the particular points, or write to me about them.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing alongside his reply the summary of the Parliamentary Mission's recommendations which I sent him?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Passbook Regulations

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the possession of passbooks is obligatory on persons of all races and of all African tribes in Kenya; and to what areas the obligation applies.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The passbook regulations at present apply only to Kikuyu, Embu and Meru above the age of 16 living in the Nairobi Extra-Provincial District and the Coast Province.

Mr. Manuel: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why this obligation is imposed only on Africans, and could he also say how many prosecutions have taken place up to date?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should have thought that the realities of the situation in Kenya today would give the hon. Gentleman the answer. These particular regulations were passed as a result of "Operation Anvil," and it is from a cleaning up process in Nairobi that the beginning of the end of Mau Mau will be traced.

Mr. Bottomley: Bearing in mind the fact that the Mau Mau gangs in the forest will soon be wiped out, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making an early statement to abolish the passbook system and release a substantial number from detention camps?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid I could not give any such answer at all, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that one of the recommendations of those who visited Kenya was that a real attempt should be made to clean up Nairobi, and this has been an essential part of that procedure.

Mr. Rankin: Does this system, which the Minister upholds, apply to loyal Africans as well as to disloyal Africans?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is a method of distinguishing between the two.

Mr. Bottomley: In all seriousness, may I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter; otherwise, we shall have far more trouble in Kenya in the future?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I were asked to give a single instance of the fear in the minds of the loyal Kikuyu, it would be the fear that those who have been contaminated should return among them again.

Manyani Camp

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement upon conditions in the detention camps in Kenya, and in particular what steps he has taken to curb the outbreak of typhoid in Manyani Camp.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases of typhoid have occurred in Manyani detention camp in Kenya during the last three months; how many of these proved fatal; what investigation has been made into the causes of the epidemic and with what results; and what steps are being taken to prevent its recurrence.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since the end of August there have been 63 deaths from typhoid in Manyani camp, and on 16th October, 760 cases or suspected cases were under observation. The number of persons in the camp is 16,000. I am satisfied that conditions in the camp are good, and that the outbreak at Manyani camp, which I visited last Saturday, was not due to the camp water supply or sanitation, or to any failude to take proper health measures. The probable cause was the spreading by personal contact of infection from a number of detainees who had the disease in a mild form and did not report sick. All necessary steps to control the outbreak and to prevent a recurrence have been taken, including reinoculation, isolation of sufferers and provision of more medical staff.

Mr. Johnson: When does the Minister expect to send the first detainees back from these detention camps to their lawful avocations elsewhere? Many are under suspicion, and there is great anxiety both in the United Kingdom and in the Colony about when the right hon. Gentleman is going to begin to send these people back to their normal life.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All those who have been classed as "white" under the screening procedure have had explained to them what they already know, that they are detained because of the typhoid epidemic.

Mr. Johnson: When will he, so to speak, open the pipeline back to normal life?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The opening of the pipeline to work camps in the case of those who have been graded "grey" will start as soon as the typhoid has been eradicated.

Legislative Council (African Representatives)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will appoint the committee for investigation into the best methods of electing the African Members of the Kenya Legislative Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On 12th October the Governor of Kenya announced the appointment of Mr. Coutts to investigate and advise on the methods to be adopted in choosing African representative members for the Legislative Council in Kenya. The African Member of the Legislative Council for each area and two other local Africans to be nominated by the Provincial Commissioner will be invited to be associated with him in the investigation of their area. Mr. Coutts will begin this work early in 1955 and should complete it within six months.

Mr. Johnson: While welcoming this step forward, could the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a distinguished West Indian or a distinguished African from the West Coast on to this Committee to help in this very important task along with Mr. Coutts?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that we can rely on the African Members of the Legislative Council in each area to advise about their own territory.

Care of Children

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how many children of Kikuyu descent, whose parents are in detention camps, are left uncared for in Nairobi and its immediate surrounding territory;
(2) the number of homeless and detribalised orphans left to their own resources in Kenya, particularly in Nairobi; and what steps he intends to take for their welfare.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A survey is at present being made of the number and welfare of such children and I hope to have detailed information shortly. In the meantime, I can tell the House that plans are going ahead for orphanages in the Central Province the first of which is expected to open soon, and that the establishment of a children's home in Nairobi is under discussion with the voluntary societies, including the local Save the Children Fund now being formed.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no money will be spared in an effort to care for and to protect these children, and does he appreciate that if we fail in this job these children will be the next generation of Mau Mau?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I take a very close personal interest in this matter, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the extreme importance of these steps.

Secretary of State's Visit

Mr. Steward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the progress and prospects of the anti-Mau Mau campaign in Kenya.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the present position in Kenya, with special reference to the terrorist activities of Mau Mau and their suppression.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Kenya and Uganda.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope to make a statement on my visit in a few days' time.

Parliamentary Delegation's Report

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya, a summary of which has been forwarded to him, have been implemented by the Kenya Government.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Kenya Government have implemented, or are in process of implementing, most of the suggestions made in the Parliamentary Delegation's Report. I cannot give details within the compass of a reply to a Question but, if the right hon. Member will write to me on any particular point on which he requires information, I shall be glad to supply it.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman reinforce what he said earlier, that is, to answer the summary which I sent to him, question and answer together?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND KENYA (SURRENDER OFFERS)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will initiate the offer of amnesties in Malaya and Kenya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As far as Malaya is concerned, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) on 28th July. In Kenya, the surrender offer of August, 1953, remains open to any individual terrorist who wishes to surrender. The Kenya Government has always been ready to end the fighting and to consider any approach for a mass surrender from gang leaders who are able to influence large numbers of terrorists into surrendering.

Mr. Brockway: In Malaya, do the surrender terms now include a promise, as they do in Kenya, that those who surrender will not be put to death? Secondly, in view of the fact that 1,000 Mau Mau participants in Kenya gathered together to lay down their arms last April and, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, they dispersed because of an unfortunate accident, will the Minister now urge that renewed efforts should be made with some negotiations similar to the "General" China negotiations by which an end to the fighting might be brought about?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The need to speed up surrender is clearly understood by the Governor and the War Council in Kenya.

There are other Questions later about the rate of surrender, and I will answer them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Colonial Secretary—he will have an opportunity next week when he makes his fuller statement—give particular attention to the report which the War Council has just published, particularly to the sentence which, according to my memory, says that unless an alternative is provided, these leaders are likely to go on fighting indefinitely, with all that that means for Kenya? Will he give consideration to the desirability of proclaiming the terms of surrender and give some time to this matter when he makes his statement next week?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly deal with the surrender position when I make my statement, and I shall, of course, take very seriously indeed anything that the War Council says.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Education, Housing and Employment

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to provide education, housing and employment for the population of Singapore, which has doubled since 1931.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Much progress has been made in education, housing and employment since the end of the Japanese occupation and every effort is being made to secure further improvement. Every child can now have six years in a primary school and great attention is being paid to the training of teachers to meet the large increase in the birth rate during recent years.
The Singapore Improvement Trust are now building over 2,000 homes a year as against 212 in 1947. On employment, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his Question on 12th May.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the present rate of population growth continues for the next six years it will be necessary to provide another 100,000 places in the secondary and primary schools? Will he ensure that the provision of school places keeps pace with the growth of population?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Singapore has something of which to be very proud, that every child can now have six years in a primary school.

Terrorists (Surrenders)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the latest figures of surrenders in Malaya during the present year, compared with those of last year.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One hundred and eighteen terrorists surrendered in the first seven months of this year, compared with 193 in the corresponding months last year.

Mr. Awbery: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the number has been reduced? Is there in his own mind any reason for it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is fairly clear that it is probably due to the reduction in the number of contacts made with the terrorists, and that reduction is itself probably due to the fact that the terrorists have been driven into the deep jungle.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the surrender terms offered to the participants in the jungle war in Malaya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Federation Government have guaranteed that every Communist who surrenders will be justly and humanely treated and that, provided that he has not been concerned in murder, he will not be charged with the capital offence of bearing arms. There are also fixed rewards for any who bring out two or more others with them, or who bring out weapons which are not their own, eliminate other terrorists before surrendering or give information which is successfully used by the Security Forces.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that when we discussed the problem of Malaya before the Recess I quoted the case of a man who surrendered under the terms of the armistice and was then brought before a court and executed? Will the Minister look into a case of that character, because it discourages men from surrendering?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would also enormously discourage the people who have witnessed atrocious crimes or whose families have been the victims of atrocious crimes if people who were guilty

of murder were not called upon to pay the penalty.

Mr. Hale: Did I rightly apprehend the right hon. Gentleman to say that payments are made for the elimination of other people living in Malaya? Under what laws is this done? By what courts will the offences be tried? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the circumstances are, to whom the payments are made, and who is to be eliminated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Malaya is living under emergency conditions, and it is essential to bring the emergency to an end as early as possible. These and other means, which would not be palatable under purely peace conditions, must be used in circumstances of this kind.

Mr. Brockway: The Minister said in reply to an earlier Question that he would reply to me at this point. Perhaps I might put my question now. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending to Malaya the same surrender terms as are offered in Kenya, including no death penalties?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I do not reply in detail to the hon. Gentleman's question, I must not be taken as accepting the comparison which he draws between Kenya and Malaya. Anyhow, the circumstances are wholly different. I have answered in reply to this Question the point put to me by the hon. Gentleman previously, and I have nothing to add to that reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Police Launch (Seizure)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the circumstances in which the Hong Kong police launch disappeared from its moorings on 29th July; and what steps have been taken to prevent this happening again.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that steps are being taken to prevent such an incident happening again?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope so, Sir.

Following is the answer:
The launch, manned by a Chinese corporal and nine constables, was seized in the early hours of 29th July by three armed Chinese acting by pre-arrangement with one member of the crew who was on armed guard duty at the time. The four men are then said to have brutally murdered the Chinese corporal and after overpowering the remainder of the crew, who were asleep and unarmed, to have steered the launch to Chinese territory. In response to Her Majesty's Government's inquiries, the Chinese Government subsequently returned the launch to Hong Kong together with eight of its crew. The Chinese constable and his three accomplices who seized the vessel were not returned. A Magistrate's jury in Hong Kong has since returned a verdict of murder against these four men and warrants have been issued for their arrest. As regards the second part of the Question, all Hong Kong Police launches at moorings are now guarded by shore police as well as by their own crews. Frequent visits by officers in charge and shore police are also made.

Governor's Statement

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the statement made in the United States of America by the Governor of Hong Kong criticising the recent visit to China of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, West, and whether he will instruct officials of his Department to refrain from political controversy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have seen Press reports of the statement to which the right hon. Member refers. Whilst I agree that it is undesirable that Governors, though they are not, of course, officials of the Colonial Office, should engage in political controversy affecting the United Kingdom, I do not feel that any instructions to them are necessary.

Mr. Wilson: In view of this case, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be better for the Governor of Hong Kong to spend his time governing Hong Kong instead of going to the United States on lecture tours arranged by Her Majesty's Government and, on arriving there, beginning by indulging in political controversy of this kind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the difficulties of Hong Kong, I think a visit by the Governor to the United States is very helpful. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not actually read the details of what the Governor said. I did.

He said:
I did say that I thought the visit was unfortunate. I also said that I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was responsible and sincere. In reply to a further question as to whether I thought the same of the others, I replied that I did not know them and had never met them, and therefore I was not in a position to say.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Governor is not just an official, but he is appointed by the Secretary of State. Would not the right hon. Gentleman say quite plainly that he deprecates any Governor making comments on British politics?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the right hon. Gentleman will read my answer he will see that I said that it is undesirable that Governors should engage in political controversy.

Mr. Alport: If my right hon. Friend accepts the principle suggested by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), would he not agree that it should be reciprocal and that politicians should refrain from making unnecessary and critical comments on Governors?

Mr. S. Silverman: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Governor of Hong Kong, like the Governor of any other Colonial Territory, is Representative and Vice-Regent in that area of Her Majesty, and that if the Governor goes in that capacity to any other country he goes cloaked with that authority and prestige?
Is it not also the case that if he uses that occasion in order to make political statements and criticisms of other people he is doing the one thing which has always been regarded under our constitution as wrong, that is, to drag the Crown into political controversy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I would remind the House, in fairness to the Governor, that he was no doubt approached from the point of view of the reaction in the Colony which he governs. While I stick to what I said, that it is undesirable, that point should be borne in mind.

Mr. Assheton: Is it not extremely important that the people of the United States of America should appreciate the great difficulties now of Hong Kong


owing to the embargo and that it is extraordinarily valuable that those people should be well-informed?

United States Consular Staff

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the United States consular staff are now in Hong Kong; how these numbers compare with 1938; and the approximate number of United States residents served by them at these two dates.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the right hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the undoubted increase which these figures will show when published, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this horde of officials in Hong Kong is engaged in promoting American trade with China or in restricting British trade with China?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Consular Convention between Her Majesty's Government and the United States leaves it to each Government to decide how many officers they require. As to hordes of people, I personally thank God that there are hordes of Americans in the world.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Wilson: While it does not follow that these hordes should be in Hong Kong, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Governor of Hong Kong—if he can get in touch with him—and ask him whether it is not a fact that the whole British trading community in Hong Kong believes that this American Consular staff is employed there for the sole purpose of spying on British trade?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not accept the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, but on this, as on everything else, I am in continuous touch with the Governor.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Hong Kong is one of the great achievements of this nation and that its tenure is pretty precarious at the moment? Will he at least be very careful to see that it is not used as an espionage centre by a Power hostile to China?

Following is the reply:
On 9th October, 1954, there were 115 persons employed in the United States Consulate-General in Hong Kong, including one Consul General, nine Consuls and 20 Vice-Consuls. In 1938, there were one Consul General, two Consuls and two Vice-Consuls; the number of subordinate staff for 1938 is not available owing to the destruction of local records during the war.
The number of resident United States nationals in Hong Kong on 9th October, 1954 was 1,262. Figures for 1938 are not available, but the census figures for 1931 and 1941 were 494 and 396, respectively.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent United States officials in Hong Kong are concerned in the trade between Hong Kong and China; and to what extent United Kingdom officials refer to them applications by British nationals for licences to ship goods to China.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The administration of controls over exports from Hong Kong to China is the responsibility of the Hong Kong Government. I understand that they do not refer applications for licences to United States officials in Hong Kong except, occasionally, when goods of United States origin are involved.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that members of the United States Consular Corps in Hong Kong are sending for British business men and warning them that if they do not stop particular trades with China, which are allowed by Her Majesty's Government, they will be blacklisted and will have their dollar assets frozen in the United States, and that attempts will be made to interfere with the trade of their customers and to keep them from trading?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My information is that there have undoubtedly been relaxations in American control of exports to Hong Kong because of this co-operation. If the right hon. Gentleman has any information to justify the very sweeping charges he is making against an ally, I should be very ready to receive it.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has in no way answered my question. Is he aware that the Governor of Hong Kong, who, if I may say so, has battled very hard for the rights of the British trading interests in Hong Kong


on this matter, has had all this information brought to him on a number of occasions, and has, I am informed, passed on that information to the right hon. Gentleman's Department which thoroughly justifies what I have said?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not accept that the ex parte statements made by the right hon. Gentleman are necessarily accurate, and if he can give me any further information that he may have I will readily inquire into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Moffat Resolutions

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is proposed to implement the Moffat resolutions adopted by the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Rhodesia heartily welcome these resolutions. In continuing to shape its policy in accordance with them, the Northern Rhodesia Government will be greatly encouraged by the impressive demonstration of support which the resolutions received from the Legislative Council.

Mr. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will do his best to ensure that these resolutions are implemented not only for Northern Rhodesia, but also for other areas of Africa for which he is responsible?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Conditions vary in many places. I welcome these resolutions, but I would constantly remind hon. Members that racial harmony is brought about not only by political action but also by good behaviour by all races.

Congress Meetings

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken to prevent chiefs in Northern Rhodesia from associating with the African Congress, and, in particular, from attending the meeting of the Congress at Ndolo on 17th August.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir, but certain native authorities have on their own initiative passed orders to exclude Congress representatives from their areas.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that previous meetings of the African Congress have been attended by 20 or more of these chiefs? Will he look into the matter again to make sure that there has been no repression or intimidation on the part of the Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite satisfied with the accuracy of my answer.

Detained Persons

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds Mr. Titus B. Makupo, Mr. Mathias Phiri and Mr. John Mumbi, officials of the African National Congress of Northern Rhodesia, have been imprisoned for 20 months, 18 months, and 18 months, respectively; and how many other officials or members of this organisation have also been imprisoned, and on what charges.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The three persons named were convicted of not under Section 4 of the Penal Code. Thirty-six persons known to be Congress members have been imprisoned for criminal offences since 1952.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister aware that the three men named in my Question are trying to appeal to the High Court, but are unable to do so because they have no money? Will he make inquiries to see whether there is any legal aid available to help them with their defence?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly look into that.

Lusaka Municipal Board (Night Passes)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what ground the Lusaka Municipal Board imposes a night pass system for Africans; and whether this practice has been confirmed by the Northern Rhodesian Government.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The night pass system, which operates in Lusaka with the support of the great majority of law-abiding citizens, is intended to help in protecting the public from crime; the regulations at present in force were made by the Governor in Council.

Sir L. Plummer: In view of the fact that within a day or two the first anniversary of the Federation will be celebrated, would it not be a good thing to suggest to the Governor that it would be a fitting thing to remove this indignity to Africans?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot do better than remind the hon. Gentleman of what was said by an African when the Southern Provinces African Provincial Council was debating the motion, which they carried by 10 votes to two, with no abstentions: "A person who does not like being asked for a pass is no good."

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Ethiopia, where there is no European domination whatsoever, a similar so-called indignity is perpetrated by the entirely free Ethiopian Government on its African citizens?

Mr. J. Dugdale: May I ask whether the view which the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted is shared by himself?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, if the conditions are as they are in Lusaka. In the case of night offences, an overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens—and this goes for Africans, naturally—are in favour of this proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Development Corporation

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the future policy of the Colonial Development Corporation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While the Corporation continually review their policy in the light of experience, the broad lines of the policy they are following and expect to follow are those indicated in recent Annual Reports.

Sir R. Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring his fresh mind to bear on the suggestion that, at any rate in relation to pilot projects of agricultural experiments, there would be much gained by freeing this Corporation from the rigid obligation of earning 3 per cent. on the money expended, because knowledge gained from the agricultural projects can repay hundred-fold the small financial loss involved.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be unwise and unfair to the Corporation or the Government in a supplementary answer to answer a Question about a body whose activities cover so many millions of pounds.

Mr. J. Johnson: Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny that they are now paying interest on loans for past schemes amounting to some £9 million? Is it the intention of the Government to waive the interest upon them, because it is a millstone round the neck of the Corporation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope we shall have the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's presence after 7 o'clock tonight, when he will find that Clause 5 of the Overseas Resources Development Bill deals with that point.

Banned Publications

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of Her Majesty's Colonial Territories a censorship has been applied during the last 12 months, to the most recent convenient date; in which of the Colonial Territories restrictions have been placed on the import of literature for political reasons; and in which of such cases restrictions are made under local or delegated powers and not under the direct authority of Acts passed by the Parliament of Westminster.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No censorship of the Press has been applied in any Colonial Territory during the past 12 months. Restrictions on the importation of literature are in force in the public interest in certain Colonies: I am circulating a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. All have been imposed under local legislation.

Mr. Hale: "Local legislation" usually means the Governor. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in many Colonies no African papers are permitted to be printed and no English papers permitted to be imported except under restriction? In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman approach the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir Winston Churchill) and find out whether the Atlantic Charter is still in force, and if so, subject to what racial limitations?

Following is the list:
Aden, Antigua, the Bahamas, British Guiana, Cyprus, Fiji, the Gambia, the Gold Coast, Grenada, Jamaica, Kenya, the Federation of


Malaya, Nigeria, Northern Rhodesia, North Borneo, Nyasaland, Sarawak, Seychelles, Singapore, Somaliland, Tanganyika, Trinidad, Uganda, St. Vincent and Zanzibar.

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of Her Majesty's Colonial Territories courts are still empowered to pass sentences of corporal punishment on men, women and juveniles, respectively; if he will state, in each case, the nature of the offences in respect of which such punishment can be imposed and the maximum number of strokes which can be inflicted; and in which cases such power is derived from local or delegated powers and not under the direct authority of legislation passed by the Parliament of Westminster.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the full reply is too long and detailed to be given orally or to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House and will send a copy to the hon. Member. In all territories, the powers of the courts to pass sentences of corporal punishment are derived from local legislation and native law and custom. In no territory is any court empowered by legislation to pass such sentences on women or girls. So far as I am aware, there is no such power under native law and custom, and if it exists, I am confident that the power is not exercised.

Mr. Hale: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that abolishing this old fashioned and rather villainous process would be a very small reform? Would it not be a very welcome gesture of conciliation if we abolished this purely humiliating punishment from our criminal system here and in the Colonies?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Some regard should be paid to the views of local governors on these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Press Articles (Prosecution)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the result of the prosecution of Aminu Kano, one of the leaders of the Hausa Nationalist Movement and N.E.P.U., for publishing an article with seditious intent; what

sentence was imposed; and whether he will put in the Library of the House a translation of the essential passages in the article or articles on which the charge was based.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Aminu Kano was convicted in the Kano Magistrate's Court on two counts under the Criminal Code of writing and publishing a seditious article in Hausa in the "Daily Comet" newspaper. He was fined £25 on each count. He has paid the fine. The charges were based on the article as a whole. I am placing a translation in the Library of the House.

Sir R. Acland: Is the Minister aware that I have received a copy of this article and that there does not seem to be anything in it other than the fact that this man does not like Europeans and wants to get them out of the country? Is this something which Africans are not to be allowed to express in the future, under penalty of a £25 fine?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As this is a judicial matter, it would be quite improper for me to comment upon it.

Political Offences

Sir R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many people in Northern Nigeria are imprisoned, or otherwise detained awaiting trial, charged with offences of a political character; and, of these, how many have been so detained for periods of over two and of over four weeks.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Member will let me know what specific categories of offence he has in mind, I will obtain the information for him. On 1st October, no one was in prison or detained pending trial on charges of sedition or unlawful assembly.

Newspaper Office (Search)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the offices of the "Daily Comet" in Kano, Northern Nigeria, were raided in July last; why the houses of the President-General of the Northern Elements Progressive Union and the editor of the "Daily Comet" were searched; what was the nature of the documents that were removed; and what action has been taken subsequently by the police.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The offices of the "Daily Comet" and the house of Aminu Kano, President-General of the Northern Elements Progressive Union, were searched on the authority of a magistrate's warrant for evidence to show who were the publishers and authors of an apparently seditious article published in this paper. The editor's house was not searched. The typewritten original of the article, proof and file copies of the "Daily Comet" issue carrying it, the editor's diary and certain other apparently seditious publications were removed. Documents not required for the subsequent legal proceedings were returned. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland).

Mr. Rankin: I assume from the Minister's answer that he disputes some parts of the allegations contained in the Question. Is he aware that all these happenings were reported in the "Nigerian Citizen" of 8th July last, and that they are the result of a great deal of repression in that part of Nigeria? Can he assure us that wherever a voice of criticism is raised he is not going to stifle it, especially if it comes from an African?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course not, nor is criticism necessarily seditious as I fully recognise. My answer must be taken to represent the facts. I cannot be responsible for what may appear in some paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Roseau Botanical Gardens, Dominica

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on 22nd June, 1954, the Administrator of Dominica let part of the botanical gardens at Roseau for use as the playground of a fee-paying denominational girls' school; by what authority and under what powers this lease of public property for 99 years at a nominal rent was granted; and what steps have been taken, or are to be taken, to preserve the part in question and other parts of these gardens for the public use for which they were originally purchased and intended.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Under the authority of the Governor in Executive Council, a quarter of an acre out of the 45 acres of the botanical gardens at Roseau has been let to the Convent High School for Girls in order to provide minimum playground space. The area leased is adjacent to the Convent. There is no intention to deprive the public of the use of any other part of the gardens.

Mr. Mitchison: Does the Secretary of State realise that these are public gardens, and that if a quarter of an acre is let to one school, there is nothing to prevent further encroachment on this public property? What steps does he propose to take to restore to its proper public use this part of the gardens and to see that there are no further encroachments?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In the light of the good work that is being done by the Convent, that question is a little ungenerous.

Bermuda (Population)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps the Government and elected representatives of the people of Bermuda have taken to deal with the problem of their population, which in 1950 was 2,300 to the square mile; and what effect they have given to the Bermuda Commission's Report on the Growth of Population and Illegitimacy of 1951, especially its suggestion of an immediate expansion of the work on birth control and planned parenthood.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Bermuda Government are still considering the rceommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the growth of population and illegitimacy. Voluntary attendance is increasing at the three clinics which have been established to give instruction in planned parenthood. I understand that a new Immigration Bill, which will tighten the control of immigration and permanent settlement, is shortly to be put before the Bermuda Legislature.

Inter-Island Shipping Services

Sir R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the result of his consultations with the parties concerned with regard to the provision of inter-island shipping services for the British West Indies.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is hoped that an agreement will be signed shortly between the West Indian Governments and a shipping company providing for an inter-island shipping service starting early in the New Year.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (INDUSTRIAL LAND)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the land, stated by the Secretary for Lands and Mines for the Protectorate of Nyasaland to be available as freehold for industrial purposes although not privately owned, is African Trust Land; and if he will inform the House whenever he uses his powers under Section 7 (1) (b) of the Nyasaland Protectorate (African Trust Land) Order in Council, 1950, to grant a lease or right of occupancy of African Trust Land to a person other than an African.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Secretary for Lands and Mines did not have African Trust Land in mind when he made the statement attributed to him, and I am still considering with the Governor the terms on which land should be made available for industrial purposes in Nyasaland. As regards the second part of the Question, the powers to which the hon. Member refers have never been exercised, and I would willingly inform the House if I began to use them.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Constitutional Reforms

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions have been reached by Her Majesty's Government on the official recommendation of Sir Keith Hancock regarding constitutional changes in Buganda and Uganda.

Mr. Steward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the constitutional reforms in Buganda, following the inquiry carried out under his auspices by Sir Keith Hancock.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The recommendations agreed by the Governor of Uganda and the Baganda representatives at the

conference presided over by Sir Keith Hancock will be presented to the Lukiko and published about the end of this month. I propose to make a statement at that time.

Emergency Regulations

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the state of emergency is still in force in Uganda.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Several Emergency Regulations were revoked on 9th August, and only those concerning industrial disputes and the publication of newspapers are still in force in Buganda.

Mr. Thomson: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect the remaining Regulations, which are very important and impinge on the liberty of the subject, to be lifted?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not give an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Situation

Sir R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give a report on the present conditions in British Guiana.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The situation in the Colony generally is quiet. There have been no serious labour disputes, sugar production is well up on last year and the rice crop is expected to be a record one. The people generally are taking an increasing interest in the Development Plan and they are being encouraged to put forward local "self-help" schemes. I regret to say, however, that extremist leaders so far appear to retain much of their influence and the underlying situation still gives cause for concern.

Constitutional Commission (Report)

Sir R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received the Report of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission; and what further action he proposes to take.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. The Report will shortly be published as a Command Paper, and I hope to be able then to announce Her Majesty's Government's decision on it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has promised that next week he will make a statement on Kenya. Am I to gather from his present answer that he will also be making a statement on British Guiana? Since these matters will raise great issues, will he consult with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with a view to the Government providing the time in which to discuss them since they only seem to be discussed in time provided by the Opposition?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly discuss it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GATWICK AIRPORT (GOVERNMENT DECISION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir G. TOUCHE: To ask the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the Government has now reached a decision regarding the report made by Sir Colin Campbell about the proposed development of Gatwick Airport; and whether he will make a statement regarding the future of this airport.

At the end of Questions—

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Question No. 124.
Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government, after full consideration of the Report of the Public Inquiry into the proposal to develop Gatwick Airport for the purposes set out in Command 8902, have decided that this development shall proceed forthwith. A White Paper on this subject will be in the Vote Office this afternoon.

Sir G. Touche: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable body of opinion to the effect that owing to the development of the helicopter this new airport will be redundant very soon after it is built? Would it not be far wiser to spend this large sum of money on the development of helicopters, in which field we are at present so far behind the Americans?

Mr. J. Boyd-Carpenter: We are anxious to make the best possible progress with the helicopter, but I really do not think

that the development we hope to make in that direction affects in any degree the need for this airport. The helicopter may well develop traffics in addition to, not in substitution of, the services operated by fixed-wing aircraft. As the White Paper will, I hope, make clear, the situation with respect to flights into London Airport will in any event become very acute by 1958.

Sir G. Touche: Do the Government propose to carry out the recommendations in the Campbell Report with regard to hardship and compensation?

Mr. J. Boyd-Carpenter: We have taken note both of Sir Colin Campbell's recommendations and of what was said by my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary to the people directly concerned. I would rather not summarise the proposals we have for dealing with possible hardship. They are dealt with in some detail in paragraph 15 of the White Paper.

Mr. Beswick: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman says that London Airport will be unable to cope with the traffic by 1958. Are we to understand that the new airport will be in operation by that date?

Mr. J. Boyd-Carpenter: We have every intention of having it in operation by the spring of 1958.

Mr. Gough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main causes of apprehension is the noise and vibration coming from the present maintenance unit? Will the new maintenance unit increase or decrease that problem?

Mr. J. Boyd-Carpenter: The new maintenance area will be further from the main Crawley industrial area than is the existing maintenance area at Gatwick Airport. Though the work will probably be on a larger scale it will be much further away from that substantial body of property.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) further considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 38.—(PROTECTION FOR PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS.)

3.33 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 41, line 43, after "applicant," to insert:
within twenty-eight days of the receipt of the application.
On something like 44 occasions during yesterday's proceedings we made Amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill to bring it into line with the corresponding legislation for England and Wales. The English Bill provides that when local authorities are approached by applicants who desire to buy land they shall, under the terms of the corresponding Clause, be required to reply within 28 days. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the Scottish Bill into line and to require a reply within that time.
The House by now will be aware of the purpose of Clause 38. It is designed to give protection to prospective purchasers. Before a man buys land he can go to the local authority and ask whether it or any other public authority has any proposal to acquire the land, or part of the land, which he proposes to buy. If the answer from the authority is "yes," then quite clearly he is not likely to go ahead with the purchase, and the owner of the land will be in the unfortunate position of having lost a sale without any guarantee that his land will be acquired within a reasonable space of time.
On the other hand, if the local authority answers "no," then the prospective purchaser can go ahead and buy the land. If he gives notice to the planning authority in the requisite form and within the requisite time that he has contracted to buy that land, and then the authority buys the land within a period of three years, as at present—five years if my right hon. and gallant Friend's

Amendment is accepted and if I understand it correctly—then the planning authority has to compensate the purchaser not only by paying him the existing use value of the land but the existing use value, subject to planning permission for the purpose for which he acquired the land. That is irrespective of whether he has established a Part V claim or no.
The framers of the 1947 Act intended that the designation procedure should cover such cases. The House will be well aware that the 1947 Act provided that where a public authority desired to acquire land, it should designate its intention and that that designation should be clearly shown upon the development plan. This Bill, seeking to be fair to prospective purchasers, in fact gives public authorities statutory options at bargain prices over all land whose development value has increased since 1947.
By this Amendment we seek to prevent a planning authority from hawking round the land. This is a valuable option which the authority has and we want to prevent the situation from arising in which a prospective purchaser goes to the authority and says, "I have a proposal to buy this land for certain purposes. Do you want to buy it yourself or is there any public authority which wants to buy it?" If that happens, we want to be quite sure that the planning authority will not at once write to regional hospital boards, education authorities, Government Departments and other bodies which have powers of compulsory purchase, and say "Here is this land in our area. Would it be suitable for you? If so, we can make the necessary arrangements for you to have it on advantageous terms"—advantageous since, whether it is a Part V claim or not, all the development value which had accrued since 1947 would be excluded. We want to prevent the planning authority from hawking the land around. Therefore, what we have done is to ask that the reply shall be made in writing within 28 days. It is not an absolute protection, but it is some protection.
There is another reason for this request. We are in a great difficulty in cases where land is proposed to be offered for sale by public auction. Very seldom


are the auction particulars and the conditions of sale published more than about three weeks before the time of the auction, so that the prospective purchaser will be in a difficult position if he has to wait a long time before he gets a decision from the planning authority. I regret that we have proposed a period of 28 days. I would much prefer to see something like 14 days, but we have yielded to advice in this respect. We want to bring ourselves into line with our colleagues south of the Border, and so we have suggested a period of 28 days.
We had an opportunity upstairs of making some reference to this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate advanced two reasons upstairs for his unwillingness to accept an Amendment on these lines. I want to deal briefly with those two reasons. First, he said—I am paraphrasing roughly what he said—that if we put in a period of 28 days, local authorities, being human, as they are, will wait until the 27th day before sending a reply. I thought that remark was very derogatory to local authorities. I know of hundreds of cases in which local authorities are empowered by Act of Parliament to do things within a certain time, to give a reply within 21 or 28 days, and I have never yet known of a local authorty which has waited until the 20th or 27th day before making a reply. I do not believe they do that, and I do not believe that my right hon. and learned Friend knows of a local authority in Scotland which has behaved in that way.
My right hon. and learned Friend also said that if the planning authority failed to reply in 28 days, it would be saddled with liability to pay to the prospective purchaser planning permission value instead of the existing use value. I hope he does not mean that he is siding with local authorities which are anxious to get land for a good deal less than they ought to pay for it. In those circumstances, there might be a prospective purchaser who would act in good faith on the word of the planning authority that it does not require to buy the land and that, so far as is known, there is no other public authority which requires to buy the land. Acting upon this information, this prospective purchaser would pay the full mar-

ket value for this parcel of land, and then the planning authority would go back on its word and would require to buy the land back. All that the authority is required to give is the existing use value, subject to planning permission—

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith)indicated dissent.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My right hon. and gallant Friend shakes his head. If I am wrong, I hope he will say so. The authority gives the existing use value subject to planning permission, and that is the value which it ought to give. I do not think it ought to try to avoid giving that value because it failed to answer a letter within 28 days.
I have made rather a long speech about what may seem to be a rather unimportant matter, but I think it is important, and I see no reason why in this case we should be different from our colleagues south of the Border who decided to insert this provision in their Measure. We ought to do likewise.

Sir William Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: We on these benches have listened with interest to the argument of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). I think that if his assumptions were correct and his apprehensions were well founded, there might be some justification for accepting this Amendment; but, so far as I can see, a great many of his assumptions are on the basis that all local authorities are villains who are trying to do somebody down. Local authorities are not really like that at all. Local authorities, in the main, try to do their duty by the community and to protect the community. If there is to be a choice between protecting the community and protecting people who speculate in land, we on these benches would naturally come down on the side of protecting the community.
I can see the possibility of a local authority, without any ill-will at all, procrastinating and keeping somebody waiting for months, and there might be some argument for trying to find some method


of expediting such matters. On the other hand, if a period of 28 days were put into the Bill it would put a weapon in the hands of somebody who wanted to purchase land by which he could bulldoze a local authority into giving an answer to his question, whether it was right or not.
I can see no reason why local authorities should not consult other public bodies as to whether the land is to be purchased compulsorily or not. It is better to have the matter settled finally than to have somebody purchasing the land and then a local authority compulsorily purchasing it at a later date. It is also true that a local authority might not be able to decide such a question immediately, and I do not see why it should be forced to do so.
May I suggest another reason why it would be unwise to tie the matter down in such a fixed manner? My experience is that if people are forced to answer questions before they are ready to do so, those who force them to give an answer very often get the answer they do not want. It is very unwise to force somebody to give an answer, because that answer may be the wrong one. It is better to rely on good will, a little patience, and perhaps a little pressure, and get the right answer.
On the basis of good sense, and in view of the fact that local authorities are, on the whole, reasonable people, I suggest that some other method of preventing procrastination might be adopted. It would be wrong to tie the period down to 28 days, because it might not be possible, with the best of good will, to complete the matter in 28 days. Why tie it down to such a fixed minimum?
This House has often debated the different penalties that judges should impose in cases of criminal offences. I remember sponsoring a Bill designed to protect the country in relation to atomic energy secrets. I think the fine suggested was up to £500, and everybody seemed to assume that every judge was so stupid that he would immediately impose a fine of £500 in every case, no matter what the offence was. Her Majesty appoints judges to our courts of law—I understand that we pay them quite well nowadays—and we expect those judges to be able to judge, upon the evidence brought

before them, what the penalty should be. I think we must also allow local authorities—who, to a certain extent, have to judge the circumstances of the case in this connection—a reasonable time to consider the matter before coming to a decision. It would be a mistake to provide for a fixed period of time such as 28 days.
I have no reason to doubt that many decisions could be come to within 28 days: I am also quite prepared to believe that some local authorities would be inclined to procrastinate and be a nuisance, but, because the odd occasion may arise, I do not think that we should make a provision which might do a great deal of harm. I should require many more arguments to be put forward before I supported the Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that local authorities are not required to come to decisions; they are simply required to say whether there is a proposal to purchase the land? That surely does not take 28 days.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It would be quite wrong to tie a local authority down to a period of 28 days. Nevertheless, I have a good deal of sympathy for some of the arguments which have been adduced by the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). It was precisely because I was anxious to prevent any delay in dealing with applications that I moved my Amendment yesterday—which, incidentally, the hon. Member did not support.
Much of this delay could be prevented if a local authority were assisted in its job by providing that the applicant for information should make his application in a prescribed manner, with details of the exact character of the site that has been bought. If that were done, it would prevent much of the delay which arises from discussions taking place between agents and local authorities concerning the exact site, and also a considerable amount of the delay which arises through discussions between local authorities and other public authorities which might be interested in the land. While I do not think that we should lay down a specific period such as 28 days, I nevertheless feel that the Joint Under-Secretary of State should look at the


matter again with a view to assisting local authorities to expedite replies.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): If I may say so with due deference, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) went into arguments which were somewhat outside the scope of his Amendment. All the Amendment does is to ask that an applicant shall receive information within a period of 28 days. It seems to me that my hon. Friend's remarks have more relevance to a later Amendment, in line 45. My hon. Friend was worried about the hawking round of parcels of land. I would point out that not only local authorities but all authorities with compulsory purchase powers have to decide whether or not they wish to purchase a piece of land, and I can say that administrative arrangements will be made for the local planning authority to be given up-to-date information on the demand for land by other public authorities in its district. Therefore, there will not be any need to hawk around any parcel of land.

Mr. Willis: That was precisely the point of my last Amendment. Do I understand that arrangements will be made in the Bill, or already exist, for local authorities to be given this information?

Commander Galbraith: Arrangements will be made for all Departments to inform the local authority in their vicinity of the land in their area which those Departments may have need of. Local authorities will have a complete record before them, and I hope that that record will be up-to-date.
My hon. Friend thought that it was very derogatory to local authorities for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that they might wait until the 27th day before replying. I would ask my hon. Friend whether it is not equally derogatory to suggest that local authorities would not reply within 28 days if no time limit were fixed. He proceeded to demolish his own argument by suggesting, in a question to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), that local authorities would surely not take 28 days to decide the matter.
That is the whole point. We think that there is a risk that if we stipulate a period of 28 days local authorities will say, "We have 28 days within which to reply." As my hon. Friend says, it does not necessarily take all that time. I think it is much better to leave the matter to the good sense of local authorities. I believe that they will answer as quickly as possible, because they are responsible bodies. That is exactly the reason the Government found it impossible to accept a very similar Amendment in Committee, and it is the reason I find it unacceptable at this stage.

Amendment negatived.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 41, line 43, to leave out:
the authority propose to acquire,
and to insert:
or not the authority propose to acquire within the next five years.

Mr. Speaker: I think that this Amendment can be taken with the Amendment in page 42, line 4. They seem to cover the same point.

Commander Galbraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer the House to the present position in this matter. As the Clause is drafted, the payment of planning permission value to a private purchaser upon his land being acquired within three years for public purposes depends upon whether the local planning authority gives him a negative answer to his inquiry whether such land is intended to be acquired for public purposes. The private purchaser is not so protected in cases where he is given an affirmative answer, no matter how far in the future the prospective public acquisition may be.
The Amendment provides that local planning authorities will be called upon to answer whether or not there are proposals on the part of a public authority to acquire the land within the next five years. If the answer is to the effect that there are no such proposals, and the prospective purchaser buys the land and is bought out within the next three years, he will receive planning permission value.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the case of the purchaser being bought out "within the next three years." Does he mean that?

Commander Galbraith: Yes—within the next three years. There are two periods connected with two quite different things. One is the period within which a local authority has to specify whether or not any public authority intends to acquire the land. That is the five-year period. Full planning permission value has to be paid if an authority acquires the land within three years. That is the three-year period. If the acquisition takes place after three years, the payment is on the basis of an ordinary compulsory acquisition—in other words, the existing use value plus claim.
The Clause has been criticised on the ground that an intention on the part of a public authority to acquire land at some time in the future will be sufficient to exclude the payment of planning permission value, which might tempt public authorities to safeguard themselves against the development of land which they might want, though not in the immediate future—land which they may want to have at some considerable, possibly some indeterminate, time in the future. The Amendment meets the criticism in that it compels public authorities to answer the question as to what their immediate proposals are in relation to the land. I hope that has put the matter clearly to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 42, line 4, after "acquire," insert "within the next five years."—[Commander Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 41.—(EFFECT OF PART III ON UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT VALUE.)

Amendments made: In page 43, line 40, at beginning, insert "any of."

In line 40, leave out "or any part thereof."—[The Lord Advocate.]

4.0 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 43, line 42, to leave out from "date," to the end of line 17, on page 44, and to insert:
(in this subsection referred to as 'the relevant balance') then, in determining whether that land or any part thereof has an unexpended balance of established development value at any subsequent time—

(i) for the purposes of section thirty-six of this Act and, if the whole of the relevant balance was, or in the appropriate circum-

stances would have been, disregarded for the said purposes, or if immediately after the acquisition or sale no person other than the acquiring authority is entitled to any interest in the land other than an excepted interest, for all other purposes of this Act, the original unexpended balance of established development value of that land shall be treated as having been extinguished immediately before that subsequent time;
(ii) subject to the preceding paragraph, if immediately after the acquisition or sale some other person is entitled as aforesaid, there shall be deducted from the said original balance the aggregate of any amount of the relevant balance which was, or in the appropriate circumstances would have been, disregarded for the purposes of the said section thirty-six and any amount which was, or in the appropriate circumstances would have been, included by virtue of that section in the compensation payable on compulsory acquisition, and the original balance of that land or that part thereof shall be treated as having been reduced or extinguished accordingly immediately before that subsequent time.

(2) Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall have effect in the circumstances therein mentioned as respects the original unexpended balance of established development value of land to which those paragraphs apply.

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment is consequential, is it not?

Commander Galbraith: The Amendment is basically consequential upon the Amendment made upon recommittal of the Bill yesterday, and which I moved, with reference to the addition of the eight-sevenths.

Mr. Johnston: While it may be true to say that it is basically consequential upon the earlier Amendment, I think we should ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to give us a little explanation of it, because it is not only basically consequential upon the other Amendment but also turns upon the Amendment the Government have given notice that they will move to the Eighth Schedule, in page 87, line 19. I think the House is entitled to a little explanation of it.

Commander Galbraith: I thought the point was clear, but, with permission to speak again, I will give an explanation. The reference to the Eighth Schedule comes in subsection (2). It is about the treatment of the unexpended balance as affected by payments made in respect of injurious affection and the new notion of eight-sevenths. It will be found in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Eighth Schedule as


it is proposed to be amended by the Amendment to which the hon. and learned Member has referred, and which we shall be debating later. I think that that would be the best time to deal with this matter.
The Clause indicates what is to happen to the unexpended balance where the land is acquired under Part III of the Bill, that is, where the price paid for the land has exceeded the use value plus the unexpended balance. The effect of subsection (1) is that where all interests other than the excepted interests are acquired, the unexpended balance is wiped out completely. That is clearly right, since the owners have paid the whole unexpended balance.
Paragraph (ii) applies where not all the interests are bought out by the acquiring authority. In such a case the payment made in respect of the balance of the interests bought out must be deducted from the balance remaining, part of which, if any, will remain alive to meet contingencies such as planning refusal affecting the interests not bought out by the acquiring authority. It is reasonable to ask, what are those interests? One I can think of is a long lease. There are others of that nature. I hope that this further explanation deals with the point at issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 42.—(AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS OF HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1950, RELATING TO CLEARED SITE VALUES.)

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 44, line 42, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in no case shall compensation as a result of amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, made by this section be more than it would have been if the amendments had not been made.

Mr. Speaker: I believe we could discuss with this Amendment the next one, in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), in page 44, line 42.

Commander Galbraith: The two Amendments are not exactly the same, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be more convenient to take them separately.

Mr. Speaker: As the House pleases.

Mr. Fraser: I think the House and the Government will appreciate the purpose

of this Amendment. We have debated this Clause before, and some discussion took place on it on Second Reading. It makes certain amendments to the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, and substitutes existing use value for cleared site value in the compensation to be paid by the local authority on acquiring certain properties.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has held hitherto that this new formula, existing use value, will be advantageous to the local authorities as the acquiring authorities inasmuch as they will now pay less than they would do if they had to pay compensation on the basis of cleared site value. Some of us doubted very much whether that would be so, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to assure us that we were under a misapprehension and that there was no need for us to have any fears at all. Some of us, in discussing these matters with local authority officers, have found that in some cases they have tended to agree with us in the fears we expressed.
One thinks of houses to be acquired by local authorities under the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act to be patched up and continued in use for, perhaps, 15 years. We find it difficult to believe that the existing use value of land with houses upon it to be used for 15 years will be less than the cleared site value of that land. We may be wrong; but in discussing it with local authority technical officers we learned that they found themselves in exactly the same dilemma as we had found ourselves. They think that the new price to be paid will in this case, in all probability, to put it no higher than that, be in excess of the cleared site value.
What we are proposing in the Amendment is that a proviso shall be added to the Clause to make quite certain that the amendment we are here making to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, will not be disadvantageous to the local authorities. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right in his belief that these new provisions will be advantageous to the local authorities, there cannot be very much harm in making sure by using for that purpose two and a half lines in a Bill of 74 Clauses plus one or two new ones that we added yesterday and a great number of Schedules, all calculated to protect the interests of a few claim holders under the Town and Country


Planning (Scotland) Act. If we can devote all those pages to protecting the interests of a few landlords, it seems to us that we might well devote two and a half lines to protecting the interests of the great local authorities.
I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accepts this and, even though he may think that we are wrong in our fears that the cost to the local authorities of acquiring this land may in certain circumstances be greater, that nevertheless he will be willing to accept the Amendment, which will make quite certain that the local authorities will not be put to any disadvantage as a consequence of this Clause.

Mr. D. Johnston: I beg to second the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: I am worried that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have fears about this matter. I can assure him that the Clause would not be in the Bill if I shared their fears. It has always seemed to me ridiculous that in all cases of acquisition other than that of the unfit house the local authority should be called upon to pay only the value of the site with the building on it, whereas in the case of the unfit house they should have to pay the cleared site value, with the building still on the site—in other words, they should have to pay for the demolition of the building twice over. That was why this Clause was inserted in the Bill.
I want, if possible, to put hon. Members minds quite at rest on this matter. The fear which the hon. Gentleman expressed is that, in the absence of the cleared site formula, the purchase price might be inflated by taking into account the possible continued payment of rent either for the unfit house or for the house as repaired and continued in use by the authority under the Act which has recently received the Royal Assent.
We have been to the valuation department and obtained its advice, which is that the possibility of continuing to receive rent for an unfit house does not influence the market price of the property and that the compensation is assessed on the value of the property at the date of the notice to treat; and that accordingly, in assessing the compensation, no account can be taken of the future actions of the

acquiring authority in respect of the property. We are informed that there is no possible chance of there being an increase above the figure obtained under the cleared site value. In fact, it must inevitably be less.
Nevertheless, I wish to put the minds of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends completely at rest and I am therefore prepared to accept the Amendment in principle, although it will require to be slightly re-worded to be brought into line with the Bill. In those circumstances, perhaps he will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am very glad to have that assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 44, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(2) The basis of compensation in cases of acquisition under the foregoing subsection shall be existing use value and in determining this full allowance shall be made for the cost or estimated cost of demolition of buildings and the clearance of the site.
This Amendment deals with the same point as the previous Amendment. The Bill alters the basis of compensation from cleared site value to existing use value, as I understand it. We have accepted that in this Amendment but have tried to define what is meant by existing use value. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman commenced his reply to the previous Amendment, he seemed to suggest that the existing use value, when determined, should be the cleared site value.

Commander Galbraith: The compensation to be paid on compulsory acquisition is the existing use value plus the claim.

Mr. Willis: Plus any unexpended portion of the development value, I understand. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mention that previously.

Commander Galbraith: Yes, I did.

Mr. Willis: If it is to be on the basis of the existing use value, surely the existing use value should take into account any sums expended by the local authority in clearing the site. It seems to me quite unfair that the local authority should have to bear the burden of clearing the


site instead of it being borne by the owner from whom the land is acquired. The owner is, after all, receiving the existing use value for the land. If he were to put the land into that condition while it remained in his own hands, he would have to clear the site. It has no existing use value until he has cleared the site. If the local authority acquires the site, he avoids that responsibility and the local authority has to accept the responsibility of demolishing the building.
It seems to me that that is unfair to the local authority. One local authority has complained to me that it is unfair and that there should be a clearer definition in the Bill. It may be that the wording of the Amendment is not all that could be desired, and I am prepared to accept that, but I should like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accepts the principle.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am happy to do so, although I do not do so with very much hope, not because the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has not been overwhelming, but because the Joint Under-Secretary of State insisted on taking this Amendment separately from the previous Amendment. Having heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accept the previous Amendment, I can only expect rejection on this occasion. Hope has not gone, however, and I will make way for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to reply.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) showed considerable acumen in seeing why I asked for the two Amendments to be taken separately. This Amendment can be divided into two distinct parts. The first part is that the basis of compensation shall be the existing use value, and that I am quite unable to accept, because the basis of compensation is, in fact, existing use value plus the unexpired value of the claim. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had wanted to make this plea, he should not be making it now; he should have made it when the 1947 Act was going through, because that Act provides for the automatic payment of the established claim. We are merely continuing that.

Mr. Willis: I accept that, but at the end of my remarks I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say whether the existing use value, irrespective of the unexpended portion of the development value plus one-seventh—the existing use value itself—could not be defined in these terms.

Commander Galbraith: I have dealt only with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I am coming to the second part now. In the second part of his Amendment, he says that, in determining what the existing use value is, full allowance shall be made for the cost or estimated cost of demolition of buildings and the clearance of the site. That is exactly what happens now. I thought that I had explained that in dealing with the last Amendment. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, in the circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 44.—(RECORDING OF NOTICES AS TO, AND APPORTIONMENT OF, COMPENSATION FOR DEPRECIATION.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 45, line 44, to leave out "whose interests appear," and to insert:
entitled to an interest in land which appears
This is a drafting Amendment parallel to the Amendments to Clauses 14 and 31.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 47.—(SCOPE OF PART V.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): I beg to move, in page 48, line 21, after "land," to insert:
to which the planning decision or order related.
This is a drafting Amendment indicating more particularly the land to which Clause 47 applies.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 48, line 28, to leave out from "paragraph," to the end of line 30, and to insert:
or, where by virtue of any provision of this Act two or more separate claim holdings have been constituted thereout, one or more of those separate holdings whose area consisted of or included that land was still subsisting at the commencement of this Act; and in this


Part of this Act any such land is referred to as 'qualified land,' and any claim holding such as is referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection is referred to as 'the relevant holding'.
This is a consequential Amendment necessary to take account of the various provisions which have been put into the Bill for splitting a claim holding, under Clauses 3 and 16.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 48.—(RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF PAST PLANNING DECISIONS.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 48, to leave out lines 34 to 43, and to insert:
or order as is mentioned in the last preceding section if he is entitled to an interest in any qualified land and the value of that interest or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the value of that interest in so far as it subsisted in that qualified land, was depreciated by the decision or order:
Provided that compensation shall not be payable under this Part of this Act in respect of an order under section nineteen of the principal Act so far as it relates to any particular land if—

(a) compensation in respect of that order is or was payable by the local planning authority under section twenty of that Act; and
(b) by virtue of paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section twenty (which relates to development exempt from development charge by virtue of Part VII of that Act) the compensation includes or included compensation in respect of loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of an interest in that land."

Mr. Speaker: I think that this Amendment and the following four Amendments go together.

Commander Galbraith: I should like to explain this Amendment and the four others relating to Part V of the Bill. When we re-examined this Part of the Bill, we came to the conclusion that it could be drafted in a much more compact and understandable form by eliminating certain repetitions and substituting particular for general references to other parts of the Bill. This Amendment and the other Amendments which we are discussing do that. We are not altering the provisions in any material particular, and the whole series of Amendments may be fairly described as drafting Amendments.

Mr. George Lawson: Perhaps I shall be in order in putting this question, as it relates to Part V of the

Bill. I am wondering what is the effect of making these compensatory payments for past accounts where permission was refused, and what revocation will be made and compensation paid for these past refusals. I am wondering what effect the payment of this compensation will have upon the future value of the land in question. The present position, I understand, is that the value is in fact the existing use value plus the claim. Unless I am wrong, the payment of compensation will reduce or extinguish the claim. What happens after this payment has been made? What happens to the land and the value of the land? Does the compensation payment go into the existing value of the land? In consequence, if it happens that some local or public authority were at a subsequent date to decide that such land should be compulsorily bought, what would be the position regarding the price of that land?
Perhaps I can make myself clear in this way. If a piece of land were valued at a given restricted use value of £50, and because of refusal to permit development £150 were paid in compensation, would this add to the value of the land and would the value of the land become for future purchasers or compulsory purchase purposes £200, or would the public authority acquire that land for £50? In this case, would the public authority be required to pay back to the Government, which in the first place paid compensation of £150, that £150? If it paid £50 plus £150, it seems to me that the owner of the land would be paid twice, once for compensation for refusal to develop, and then this extra £150 if the land were compulsorily acquired. I am sorry if that sounds a little vague. This is a matter which should have been thrashed out in Committee, but, as is well-known, we had very little opportunity of doing so.

Commander Galbraith: I think that the hon. Gentleman stated clearly what the Clause does. The Clause lays down circumstances in which compensation will be paid in respect of previous planning decisions and revocation or modification orders. Where that payment has been made, the claim value is reduced. The compensation payable is the existing use value plus the value of the claim. The claim value will be reduced by the amount which has been paid, so payment will not increase the value of the land.


The local authority will at any time be able to purchase at the existing value plus the unexpended balance of any claim which is outstanding at that time. If the claim is completely wiped out, the purchase will be at the existing use value of the parcel of ground.

Mr. Lawson: Let us assume that the use value is £50 and, because of refusals, to develop, £150 is paid in compensation. If a local authority or a public authority at a subsequent date buys that land compulsorily, will it be required to pay £200, because that would be the use value plus the claim, or will it pay £50?

Commander Galbraith: The answer is that it may not be £50; it may be more than that. It would be the existing use value of the land—

Mr. Lawson: What would that be?

Commander Galbraith: —at the date of acquisition plus any unexpended balance of the claim that was outstanding.

Mr. Lawson: I am still not clear. Would the £150, for example, enter into the use value, and would £200 become the new use value which the local authority would require to pay

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: While my right hon. and gallant Friend is thinking about that, perhaps I can offer the humble suggestions of a valuer who occasionally has to deal with these problems. The answer is simple. Existing use value is the value of the land for the use to which it is put at the relevant date. No extraneous circumstances—such as whether a Part V claim or part of a Part V claim is outstanding—alter the existing use value of the land. It is purely a matter of the valuer's valuation of the land subject to the use to which it is being put at the relevant date. No other considerations have any bearing whatever.

Mr. Lawson: Does it follow, then, that in the case which I have described the local authority could buy the land at existing use value, which need not include the £150, and that since the claim has been reduced by £150 the local authority would be obtaining the land more cheaply than would otherwise have been the case had the claim still been outstanding?

Commander Galbraith: We are entering the realms of mathematics. Suppose that the established claim is equal to £200 and the compensation is £75; the balance that would be left would be £125. On compulsory acquisition, the compensation is the existing use value—let us take the £50, as the hon. Member did—and the remainder of the claim, which we have bought out at £125. Therefore, the local authority would pay a total of £175, which, with the compensation already paid, makes a total of £250: that is, the original claim plus the existing use value. If the hon. Member studies this when he sees it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will find that it answers his question.

Mr. T. Fraser: When my hon. Friend studies all this in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will find that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has proved him to be right and that the owner would be paid twice for the land. Despite what the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) said, the land of which my hon. Friend was speaking and a low existing use value.
My hon. Friend and I both represent constituencies in industrial Lanarkshire, where there has been a good deal of industrial development in recent years. It is conceivable that in my hon. Friend's constituency or mine a person may have owned a piece of land on which stood some derelict or dilapidated houses which it was thought might one day be removed to provide an open space. My hon. Friend had in mind that there would be a claim holding in respect of the land because the person owning it anticipated that there would be industrial development upon the land. But industrial development has not, in fact, taken place, and later there might be a compulsory acquisition of the land, with an exceedingly low existing use value.
What my hon. Friend wanted to know was whether the existing use value of the land, plus the unexpended balance of any claim, would lead to a sum considerably in excess of any value that anybody would ever put upon the land, and whether the owner, having had compensation for loss of development rights, would be paid twice. If my hon. Friend reads in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow what the Joint Under-Secretary has said,


he will find that in his illustration and assumption he has been proved to be right or, at least, has been supported by the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Commander Galbraith: May I give one assurance to the hon. Member and his hon. Friend? The owner never receives more than the existing use value plus the unexpended balance of the claim. That really is the answer.

Mr. Lawson: That would surely mean that if the owner had already received, in the case I mentioned, £150, that would reduce his claim or, perhaps, wipe it out altogether. It would not be added to the value of the land and consequently, when the public or local authority came to buy the land, it would buy it at existing use value, which would not include the compensation payment. In consequence, this method would mean that the public or local authority would be able to buy the land more cheaply than it would if no compensation had been paid, because then it would have had to pay the established claim.

Commander Galbraith: If the claim had been paid previously, obviously the local authority would be buying at a lesser sum. In other words, if a claim had existed, the local authority would have had to pay the existing use value plus the claim; but the claim has been already paid, and so, obviously, the local authority pays only the existing use value.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 49, line 4, leave out "Part II," and insert:
sections twenty-five and twenty-six.

In line 8, after second "Act," insert:
(b) as if the reference in subsection (1) of the said section twenty-six to section twenty-nine of this Act were a reference to section fifty-two thereof.

In line 10, at beginning, insert:
For the purposes of the application of this Part of this Act with respect to such a planning decision as aforesaid.

In line 12, leave out from "shall," to end of line 13, and insert:
have effect as they have effect for the purposes of Part II of this Act."—[Commander Galbraith.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 49.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION FOR PAST PLANNING DECISIONS.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 49, line 14, to leave out "section," and to insert "subsection."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that this Amendment goes together with the Amendment in page 49, line 16.

The Lord Advocate: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. These two Amendments redraft Clauses 49 to 51. Clause 49, as it is proposed to be amended, replaces Clauses 49 and 50, and Clause 51 will disappear as a result of the extension of the scope of Clause 48, to which effect has already been given in one of the earlier Amendments. The two Amendments, therefore, are really drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 49, line 16, leave out from first "of," to end of line 6, on page 51, and insert:
the depreciation of the value of an interest in qualified land by a planning decision or order, the principal amount of the compensation shall be whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

(a) the amount by which the value of the interest, or, in the case of an interest extending to other land, the amount by which the value of the interest in so far as it subsisted in the qualified land, was depreciated by the decision or order; or
(b) the value of the relevant holding at the commencement of this Act or, if at the time of the decision or order the qualified land in which the interest subsisted constituted part only of the area of the relevant holding, the fraction of the said value which attached to that qualified land.

(2) If at the time of the planning decision or order the whole of the land to which the planning decision or order related and in which the interest subsisted was not qualified land, then, for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection, the depreciation of the value of the interest by reason of the decision or order shall first be ascertained with reference to the whole of the land aforesaid and shall then be apportioned between the parts of that land which respectively were and were not qualified land according to the nature of those parts and the effect of the planning decision or order in relation thereto."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 54.—(CANCELLATION OR REDUCTION OF LIABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT CHARGES.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 54, line 13, to leave out from "workers," to "the," in line 14.
The position at the moment is that the special arrangements made by the Central Land Board relating to the accommodation of agricultural workers, which are referred to in the subsection, are, broadly. that the collection of development charge on the erection of houses for such workers will be postponed so long as the houses continue to be occupied by such workers. By the Town and Country Planning Act, 1953, the development charge was abolished as regards development, including change of use taking place on or after 18th November, 1952.
It never was the intention of the Government to require payment of the postponed development charge in the event of any change in the character of the occupancy of the houses concerned taking place on or after 18th November, 1952. The words proposed to be deleted might have the effect of requiring payment where such a change took place on or after that date, since they require the Board to be satisfied that the arrangements are being complied with before any liability for payment is to be treated as discharged. The deletion of the words proposed puts the matter right in accordance with the Government's original intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 67.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO CALCULATION OF VALUE.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 71, line 12, at the end, to insert:
and the value of an interest, as calculated for the purposes of section twenty-five of this Act, or of that section as applied by section forty-eight of this Act, may be a minus quantity.
This is a drafting Amendment which, in effect, transfers to the general Clause on calculation of value the minus value provisions contained in Clauses 21 (1) and 49 (4), which form part of the provisions deleted by the Amendments in Clause 21, page 25, line 11, and Clause 49, page 49, line 16.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us an illustration of how this will operate? I am interested in the minus quantity. We have this afternoon had some clear and simple illustrations of how these things work from my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and Motherwell (Mr. Lawson).

We would be glad if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give us an example.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member will surely remember that I spent a long time yesterday giving examples in connection with the minus quantity. He will remember that on Recommittal I discussed an agricultural value of £50 and a value with planning permission of £200, and brought the amount, after dealing with feu duties and one thing and another, to a minus quantity of £150, which then became plus £150 because there were two minuses in the calculation. I cannot think of any more examples.

Mr. Steele: I very carefully read what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said yesterday, but I am afraid that I could not work out the sum from the figures which he gave.

4.45 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I regret that, but it really is not my province to teach the hon. Member, who knows perfectly well that two minuses make a plus, any further mathematical calculations. This is a rather difficult subject to deal with. The figures which I gave showed the situation created by the 1919 code, which is excellent in every way except in this matter where minus quantities are brought into account. It was to correct this that we moved an Amendment on Recommittal, and this drafting Amendment is consequent upon that Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: Am I to take it that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now answering the point which I put yesterday about the road hauliers—that we lose when we sell to the road hauliers and then we lose when we compensate them? Does it mean that we finish up with a plus?

Mr. Lawson: There are difficulties arising in connection with the feu-duty. To whom would the compensation be paid? Would it be paid to the owner of the feu? If so, does payment of the compensation mean that his right to feu the land is wiped out entirely or over a limited period of time? If not, why should he be paid compensation?

Commander Galbraith: The superior does not come into this at all. There is


another Clause in the Bill dealing with the position of the superior, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 72.—(INTERPRETATION.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 73, line 15, at the end, to insert:
compulsory acquisition" does not include the vesting in a person by an Act of Parliament of property previously vested in some other person.
The Amendment is consequential on the inclusion in Clause 6 of the new subsection (8). The reason for the Amendment is to make it clear that the vesting of property by Act of Parliament is not generally to be regarded as compulsory acquisition, because if that were not done, anybody purchasing such property from an authority in whom it had vested might be disqualified from claiming compensation under Part II of the Bill. We seek to insert these words merely to safeguard that position.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 73, line 23 [Clause 72], at end, insert:
previous apportionment" in relation to an apportionment for any of the purposes of this Act means an apportionment made before the apportionment in question, being—

(a) an apportionment for any of the purposes of this Act as made, confirmed or varied by the Lands Tribunal on a reference thereto; or
(b) an apportionment for any of the purposes of this Act which might have been referred to the Lands Tribunal by virtue of any provision of this Act but in the case of which the time for such a reference has expired without its being so referred, or which was so referred but in the case of which the reference was withdrawn before the Tribunal gave their decision thereon; or
(c) an apportionment made by or with the approval of the Central Land Board in connection with the approval by the Board of an assignation of part of the benefit of an established claim under subsection (2) of section two of the Act of 1953.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 73, line 41, at the end, to insert:
means an amount ascertained in accordance with sections eighteen and nineteen, and 'original unexpended balance of established development value'.
This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the recommittal Amendment which dealt with the eight-sevenths.

the interest supplement being included in the unexpended balance from the first.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 73, line 44, after "include," to insert "marriage or."
The Amendment is designed to make it clear that transfers of land or claim holdings made as part of a marriage settlement are not to be treated as having been made for a valuable consideration. The effect is that such transfers in those circumstances would be treated as gifts and not as sales.

Mr. Hoy: I should like a little further explanation of this Amendment. It appears to me to be far too simple. This might be a valuable consideration. We know that when marriages take place among certain classes of people fathers get rid of their responsibilities by making
disposals, even of land. I am thinking about many of our noble families. We have read about them from the pen of the right hon. Tom Johnston, who has explained all this very carefully to the people of Scotland. Is this another dodge under which people may get rid of some liability? It calls for some further explanation, and I am certain that the Lord Advocate, who is an expert on all these matters, will be delighted to give it to us.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not a fact that marriage has up to the present always been regarded as "valuable consideration" and that, therefore, this Amendment is flying in the face of authority? Why should we wish to do that?

The Lord Advocate: I trust that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) did not intend to suggest that I was an expert in knowing dodges for avoiding liability; certainly the purpose of this Clause is far removed from any such object. Its purpose is to ensure that people who may assign property or claims in a marriage contract are not deprived of the rights which otherwise they would have had.
The expression "valuable consideration" occurs in Clause 9 (2) in relation to the assignation of claim holdings. An assignee—that is to say, the person to whom the right is assigned—who receives


the claim holding as part of a marriage settlement would be ineligible to claim under Clause 9, and it would not be fair to put people into the position of being deprived of rights merely because they had assigned their rights to their prospective spouse. There is no sinister object behind this Amendment. It is merely an endeavour to say, so far as marriage settlements are concerned, that the fact that one prospective spouse assigns to the other a piece of property or a claim holding affected by the Bill is not to deprive them of the rights which otherwise they would have had.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 75, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(11) Any reference to an assignation in security shall be construed as including a reference to an ex facie absolute assignation qualified as a security by a collateral agreement.
This Amendment ensures that what is known among lawyers in Scotland as an ex facie absolute assignation qualified as a security by a collateral agreement is to be included in the references in the Bill to assignations in security. That complicated collection of words is just another type of assignation in security whereby the assent is assigned completely—that is, ex facie absolute—and which is qualified at the same time by a collateral agreement. That is a normal method of conducting business under Scots law, and this Amendment is merely for the purpose of including that recognised type of assignation among the other assignations in security in Clause 10.

Mr. Steele: I do not possess the legal knowledge of the Lord Advocate and, while I regret that my legal adviser is not sitting on our Front Bench at the moment, I am hoping that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will help me. I have been reading this Clause, and, much to my surprise, have been able to understand most of it. For instance, subsection (7) reads:
References in this Act to the local planning authority in relation to any land are references to the local planning authority for the district in which the land is situated.
However, as the Clause proceeds my difficulties increase, and I find difficulty in understanding what is meant in sub-section (10) by

Any reference in this Act to the dominium utile in relation to land which is not held on feudal tenure shall be construed as a reference to the interest in the land of the owner thereof.
This Amendment is entirely beyond me and the Lord Advocate was not able to make its meaning clear. I have moved many simple Amendments to this Bill in Committee and I was prevented from moving many other simple Amendments. We ought to understand the Amendments we make in a Bill, and, therefore, I hope that the Lord Advocate will tell us how this new subsection would work. I am sure that by this time, with his quick imagination, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have thought of a simple example which he will be able to give us immediately.

Mr. Ross: There is an easy way out of this difficulty—

Dr. H. Morgan: Withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Ross: It is getting a little late for that.
During our discussion of an Amendment yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) was interrupted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, not in the best of tempers, who invited my hon. and learned Friend to speak in another language because he did not understand Latin. Yet a Latin phrase has been inserted in subsection (10) and it is proposed to insert another in a new subsection (11). I am satisfied that the Joint Under-Secretary has not come here without knowing its meaning, and, therefore, he should explain in layman's English or in "guid braid Scots" what this means to the satisfaction of all of us.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I rise not for the purpose of attempting to explain this or any other Amendment but to protest against the whole Clause being quite contrary to what an interpretation Clause should be. An interpretation Clause is designed to enable those who are concerned with a statute to understand it and administer it. The people who will have to administer this Clause, unless they be lawyers, are not at all helped by an Amendment such as the one now proposed, which is couched in language of a highly technical character. Its meaning


may be clear to lawyers, judges and advocates but it certainly will not be clear to those who have to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act. A fortiori, it will not be clear to the unfortunate people whose money and land are dealt with under the Bill.
On these grounds I submit that the House should reject the Amendment. An interpretation Clause should be not merely in name but, in fact, a Clause which will interpret various difficult words and phrases in a Bill. This Clause is the very reverse of that. The words and phrases dealt with in Clause 72 are purported to be explained, but they are not explained. Their meaning is made still more obscure and the administration of the Bill made still more difficult. On these grounds alone, I ask the Government to withdraw the interpretation Clause and to redraft it in words which those who will be concerned with its administration will understand.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are dealing only with one Amendment and not with the whole Clause.

Mr. Hughes: I said Clause, but I meant Amendment and I was protesting against an Amendment being drafted in highly technical language which was obscure to the ordinary layman. My hon. Friends have already drawn attention to the fact that some of the words are in Latin. I do not cavil at that. Any educated person will understand words and phrases in Latin, but where such words are found in a Clause that purports to be an interpretation Clause designed to assist persons who are concerned with the administration of the Bill and its affect on their land and money, the Clause is far from being an interpretation Clause. Sir Charles—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Deputy-Speaker made a mistake in calling me by a name not my own yesterday, so I venture to hope that he will forgive me for having called him Sir Charles instead of Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I apologised to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, too. I hope that I have made my meaning clear—that this Clause which purports to be an

interpretation Clause is a Clause of opaque obscurity which will make the meaning of the Bill more difficult to understand if the Amendment is inserted. I hope, therefore, that it will be rejected.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 74.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 76, line 45, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
(3) Any order made under the last preceding subsection shall be made by statutory instrument and, at any time before the day appointed thereby, may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order under that subsection.
This is a purely precautionary provision to safeguard the position in case it should become necessary to amend the Order fixing the date of coming into force of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule.—(APPORTIONMENT OF VALUE OF CLAIM HOLDINGS.)

Amendment made: In page 84, line 15, leave out Schedule 4.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Sixth Schedule.—(CLASSES OF BUILDINGS TREATED AS COMPARABLE FOR PURPOSES OF PARTS II AND V.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 86, line 13, to leave out Schedule 6.
This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 24, which in a subsection replaces this Schedule in more general terms.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Eighth Schedule.—(COMPENSATION, ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, FOR SEVERANCE AND INJURIOUS AFFECTION.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 87, line 19, to leave out from "Schedule," to the end of line 48, on page 90, and to insert:
the following expressions have the following meanings respectively—
'The compensation' means compensation such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section forty of this Act;
'the interest affected' means the interest in respect of which the compensation falls to be assessed, in so far as that interest subsists in land, other than the relevant land, which is affected by the injurious act or event;


'the land affected' means the land in which the interest affected subsists;
'the injurious act or event' means the act or event in consequence of which the compensation falls to be assessed;
'other interest affected' means an interest other than the interest affected which subsists in the whole or part of the land affected and in respect of which compensation such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section forty of this Act is payable by virtue of the injurious act or event;
'qualified land' means land which immediately before the injurious act or event has an unexpended balance of established development value;
'the loss of development value' means the amount, if any, by which the value of the interest affected immediately before the injurious act or event, if calculated on the assumption that, until such time as the land affected might reasonably be expected to become ripe for new development, no use whatever could be made of that land, would exceed the value of that interest immediately after that act or event if calculated on the like assumption;
'the loss of immediate value' means the amount, if any, by which the difference in the value of the interest affected immediately before and immediately after the injurious act or event exceeds the loss of development value;
'the depreciation in restricted value,' in relation to an interest, means the amount, if any, by which the value of the interest, immediately after the injurious act or event, would be less than the value of that interest immediately before the act or event, if both values were calculated on the assumption that planning permission would be granted for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to the principal Act but would not be granted for any other development.
2. If neither the land affected taken as a whole, nor any part of the land affected is qualified land, the amount of the compensation shall be the loss of immediate value.
3. If the land affected, taken as a whole, satisfies the following conditions, that is to say—

(a) that it is qualified land; and
(b) that no other interest affected subsists in a part only thereof,

the amount of the compensation shall be the aggregate of the loss of immediate value and whichever is the less of the following amounts, that is to say—

(i) the loss of development value; or
(ii) the amount of the unexpended balance of established development value of the land affected immediately before the injurious act or event:

Provided that if one or more other interests affected subsist in the whole of the land affected, and the aggregate of the loss of development value of the interest affected and of any such other interest or interests exceeds

the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph, that amount shall be allocated between the interest affected and any such other interest or interests in proportion to the loss of development value of each of them respectively, and the amount of compensation payable in respect of the interest affected in addition to the loss of immediate value shall be the sum so allocated to that interest.
4. If the land affected, taken as a whole, does not satisfy the conditions mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, then, for the purpose of assessing the compensation in respect of the interest affected—

(a) the loss of development value of the interest affected and of any other interest affected shall first be ascertained with reference to the whole of the land affected;
(b) the land affected shall then be treated as divided into as many parts as may be requisite to ensure that each such part consists of land which either satisfies the conditions aforesaid or is not qualified land; and
(c) the loss of development value of each of the interests aforesaid, ascertained as aforesaid, shall then be apportioned between the said parts according to the nature of those parts and the effect of the injurious act or event in relation to each of them,

and the compensation payable in respect of the interest affected in addition to the loss of immediate value shall be the aggregate of the amounts which would be so payable by virtue of the last preceding paragraph if each such part had been the whole of the land affected.
5. In calculating value for any of the purposes of the preceding provisions of this Schedule in their application to compensation for damage to land not held with the relevant land, being damage sustained by reason of the construction or erection of works on the relevant land, no account shall be taken of the use, or the prospective use, of those works.
6. Where—

(a) the compensation includes an amount paid in respect of an interest in any land other than the land to which the acquisition related; or
(b) on such a sale as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section forty-one of this Act, the price paid included an amount in respect of damage sustained by an interest in land other than, but held with, the land to which the sale related, being damage sustained by reason of the severance of the land or by reason that the interest in that other land was injuriously affected,

and the said amount exceeds what was, or in the appropriate circumstances (as defined in the said section forty-one) would have been, the loss of immediate value of that interest, then, for the purpose of determining whether that other land or any part thereof has an unexpended balance of established development value at any subsequent time, there shall be deducted from the original unexpended balance of established development value of that other land an amount equal to the excess, or so much thereof as was, or in the appropriate


circumstances (defined as aforesaid) would have been, calculated by reference to that balance, and the original balance of that land or that part thereof shall be treated as having been reduced or extinguished accordingly immediately before that subsequent time.
7. If in a case such as is mentioned in paragraph 2, 3 or 4 of this Schedule, or subparagraph (a) or (b) of the last preceding paragraph, so much, if any, of the compensation mentioned in that paragraph, or, as the case may be, the amount mentioned in that sub-paragraph, as was, or in the appropriate circumstances (as defined in section forty-one of this Act) would have been, attributable to the loss of immediate value of the interest in question was or would have been less than the depreciation in restricted value of that interest, then, (whether or not the land in question or any part thereof would apart from the provisions of this paragraph have had an original unexpended balance of established development value) for the purpose of determining whether at any time after the acquisition or sale the land in question or any part thereof has such a balance, but for no other purpose, it shall be deemed that immediately after the commencement of this Act a claim holding subsisted with an area consisting of the land in question and a value equal to seven-eighths of the amount of the difference.
This Amendment, in effect, redrafts the provisions set out in the Schedule and it is rendered necessary by the Amendments already passed by the House, which require changes in the Schedule. At the same time, we have attempted to make the effect of the Schedule a little clearer. No radical change is involved in the Amendment although the phraseology is substantially varied. The redrafting of the Schedule does not affect the calculations, which remain as before. The depreciation caused by the injurious act or event is to be divided into two parts, the damage to the prospects of development or "loss of development value," and the damage to the existing use of the land, or "loss of immediate value" as it is called in the Amendment.
The compensation payable is to be the amount of the loss of immediate value plus, if the land affected has an unexpended balance, the loss of development value within the limits of that balance. That is provided by lines 33 to 43 which, with the definitions, replace the existing paragraphs 1 to 5. The next part of the Amendment, lines 44 to 66, deals with cases where two or more interests exist in the whole or part of the land injuriously affected. They are very substantially the same as the provisions in-

serted by the House in Clause 21 to deal with the case of competing interests in land depreciated by planning restrictions. This replaces paragraph 7 of the Schedule and the regulations which were to have been made under it. Paragraph 5 reproduces paragraph 10 of the original Schedule.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 replace the present paragraphs 8 and 9 respectively, including the regulations which would have been necessary to apply them to cases of acquisitions by agreement in expectation of compulsory power.

Mr. Woodburn: We are now coming towards the end of the Report stage and the explanation which has just been given to us seems to me to be well up to the standard of the explanations which we have had up till now. My hon. Friends have performed a marvellous feat in extracting a great many explanations of the meaning of the Bill from the Government. Those explanations have at least reached a standard of clarity equal to that of the Bill. They have been just as difficult to understand. That certainly applies to the explanation to which we have just listened.
We have to take a great deal of this on trust. The Joint Under-Secretary was explaining that two minuses make a plus. I think he has got it the wrong way round because two pluses to the road hauliers mean a minus to us. If two minuses mean a plus, it seems to me that two pluses ought to mean a minus. These mathematical formulae are extremely interesting. If people are not considered to be educated if they do not understand Latin, there seems something wrong with education if we do not understand mathematical formulae.
We have to thank the Ministers for the noble effort they have made to reduce the Bill to terms intelligible to normal human beings, of which this House is freely composed. As for abnormal human beings, we suppose that they are among the space men who are so entertaining to children. I wish to thank the Minister for having tried to explain this Amendment. We accept it in good faith and do not propose to oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Tenth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendment made: In page 93, line 14, column 3, after "subsection (2)," insert:
in section one hundred and thirteen, subsection (4)."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

5.11 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Perhaps it is only fitting, now that the Report stage has been completed—a stage during which attention has been focused upon details—that I should say a word or two on the general purposes of the Bill, because elaborate and careful consideration of details often tends to blind one to the general objects which lie behind what is intended. The House will recollect that the Bill is consequential upon the Town and Country Planning Act, 1953, which abolished the development charge system, suspended payment of the £300 million fund set up under the 1947 Act and prepared the ground for the practical solution of the difficulties which the development charge had created in the passing of property from one person to another.
Despite complication in detail, the Bill, in its general framework, is simple enough. It draws a sharp distinction between the past and the future. The past is dealt with in Parts I and V. The purpose and scheme of the Bill is to maintain the position of the 1947 Act, under which rights to receive compensation for loss of development value from the £300 million fund belonged to those persons who established claims against the fund. That was the position under the 1947 Act, which is maintained under Parts I and V of the present Bill in relation to the past. For the future the situation is quite different.
The future is dealt with in Parts II and III and, to some extent, in Parts IV and VI. Very broadly, those parts provide that development value which is represented by the established claim, or by the unexpended balance of that claim if some has already been paid away, is no longer to belong to the individual but is to attach to the land. That is the

general scheme which this Bill puts forward, to try to solve the difficulty with which the country is faced in trying to give effect to the 1947 Act's scheme. The general policy is fairly simple, but perhaps I might say a word or two about the complexity of the provisions of the Bill.
I have never sought to conceal from anyone—and I do not think that any hon. Member on either side of the House, has sought to dispute it—that this is a complicated Bill, both to read and to understand. The considerable number of Amendments which have been considered have not made the task of understanding it any easier. It would have been easy enough for us to content ourselves with a short Bill containing a broad statement of principle on the lines I have indicated and relegating all detail to subordinate legislation, either by the Central Land Board, or a Government Department. But we did not consider that the public would be content with that method of treating this subject, or that hon. and right hon. Members would approve that treatment had we attempted it.
If this House is to retain proper control over the administration of the affairs of the country, we regard it as essential that subordinate or delegated legislation should be reduced to the minimum. That is why, in this Bill, we did not confine ourselves to the easy task of stating a few general principles and leaving the rest to be worked out in detail by a subordinate authority. Inevitably, if we took the course of writing into the Bill all the detailed provisions necessary to carry out those general principles, the Bill would become complicated because claims for compensation can arise in a whole variety of ways. The acts and events which give rise to those claims may affect more than one interest in any particular parcel of land and may affect the different interests to different extents. We have tried to provide for all these possible contingencies in the various Clauses and the Amendments.
It may be that some of the situations which the Clauses envisage appear very unlikely to occur, or at least unlikely to occur often, but the existence of these provisions in the Bill shows our anxiety to cover all possible contingencies and to provide as fairly as we can an equitable settlement between all the people


affected by this legislation. If it does anything, it demonstrates that the Government are determined that Parliament is to decide how this problem shall be solved, instead of delegating to some other body the practical working out of the wide generalisations which would otherwise have been set down in the Bill.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: We now approach the last stage of one of the most complicated Bills to come before this House since the passing of the original Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, as a justification for bringing forward this Bill, that it is right that Parliament should deal with all the details of the distribution of compensation to different people. Our objection to the Bill is not to what is in it, but to what is not in it; in other words, because it is a lopsided approach to a double question; because the only thing dealt with is the question of being fair to the people receiving compensation and no steps are taken to be fair to the community paying the £300 million, or what is to be paid out of that sum.
However, once the principle of the Bill is accepted, that it is to deal only with one side of the matter, we have no objection to it being dealt with in a just and fair manner. I, and I think most of my hon. Friends, have great sympathy with the decision of the Government not to pay out the £300 million. While that was proposed in an effort to be generous when we were taking away from people their development rights, it is true, as the Government have argued, that if the money had been paid out before frustration took place, it would have proved a big liability on the country to provide for something which might never have occurred. Therefore, the principle adopted by the Government, of postponing any payment from the £300 million until such time as development is frustrated, is reasonable and fair. Inasmuch as it is also an economy, and is not making any gift to the landlords which they do not need to have, we are in accord with that decision.
In the details of the Bill an attempt is made to work out all the conceivable circumstances under which distribution of compensation might have to take place. The Government have attempted the task of foreseeing every conceivable compli-

cation which might arise. That is an almost impossible task, and I disagree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his justification for including these details in an Act of Parliament.
Recently, I was a member of a committee which went into the whole question of subordinate legislation. Were we to accept the conclusions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or to consider that his justification for this Bill is correct, then it would mean that every Bill which came before the House would be cluttered up with complicated rules and regulations which could not be altered except by an Act of Parliament. The devices and the rules included in this Bill are matters which should have been dealt with by delegated legislation. If the guesses of the draftsmen of this Bill are wrong, nothing can be done until another Act of Parliament is passed. This House is in no position to pass Acts of Parliament continually to deal with trifles of that kind.
What is being asked is that if the money is to be paid when frustrated development is proved, all shall be done to see that it is divided fairly between the people entitled to it. That is the simple principle. But the complications and the multitude of circumstances which can only be guessed at now—and which may be wrongly guessed at—are clearly the type of thing for which regulations or delegated legislation should be provided. If power had been taken to proceed by order, then the orders might have come before the House and circumstances have been dealt with as they arose. I think that the Government were ill-advised to try to put all these details into an Act of Parliament. It is contrary to all the experience of Parliament in recent years, and to the principles enunciated by the committees which have considered this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has put up a valid defence for what has been done, but I am sure that after his experience during the Committee stage—which was the part in which we were permitted to share—and on Report, he must wish that this Bill had been framed on general principles and the details left to be dealt with by regulation. I wish to protest against the suggestion that there is any justification for the details contained in this Bill being brought before us in such a manner.
I do not think that we can take any exception to the manner in which it is proposed in this Bill to divide the compensation fairly. We have done our best to improve the Measure and to safeguard the public authority. The Government have conceded a number of points which we regard as valuable and they have promised to look into other matters when the Bill goes to another place, where alterations will be made to meet the desires of this House. For that we thank them.
I wish to congratulate the Government on the heroic efforts they have made to understand their own Bill, and their still more heroic efforts to make us understand it. This Bill has been an experience from which the Government should learn. They introduced it at a time in the Session when any sensible person must have known that it was incapable of being dealt with thoroughly and effectively. Even at this late stage it is not yet finished with. This Bill will be like Princes Street, in Edinburgh—it will be a wonderful thing when it is finished. But Princes Street has been altered all my lifetime and it will continue to be altered during the lifetime of children now being born. This Bill will never be finished, and it would have been sensible if the Government had provided themselves with sufficient flexibility to make orders to deal with unforeseen contingencies.
I consider that this Bill will not prove satisfactory. Unforeseen matters will arise for which provision has not been made by the Government. However, this will not be the last word on town and country planning. The Government have made a promise to solve the other part of the problem. But having made that promise in good faith, they may not have the opportunity to do so. I have no doubt that the task will be left to their successors, and I can only hope that their successors may have better luck than the Government have had with this Measure.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Although it would perhaps be presumptuous for an hon. Member on these back benches to express appreciation of something said from the other side fo the House, I am sure that the whole House will welcome

the moderate way in which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has followed my right hon. and learned Friend in this Third Reading debate, which concludes what has been a very long innings for us all.
Town and country planning is a matter upon which all hon. Members ought to agree. We all want the same thing, at any rate so far as Scotland is concerned. We all wish to see the future of the Scottish countryside safeguarded so far as we are able to safeguard it, and I welcome any movement towards an agreement on the part of both parties in this House on the question of town and country planning. Evidently I think very much as the right hon. Gentleman thinks, that parts of this Bill are good—I would say are very good—and that parts are very bad. I will explain that a little further and, in doing so, it may be that I shall move a little way towards the centre of the Floor on this matter.
First, the parts which are good. It is necessary to consider the Bill in the context of the one which preceded it. It is impossible to look in isolation at the Town and Country Planning Bill of 1954. One must also consider its predecessor of 1953, because the one completes the work of the other. Taking the two together, the features which are good about the system which has emerged from the introduction of this legislation are, first, that the enterprise and initiative of the developer has been released from the deterrent of development charges without any relaxation of the controls imposed in the public interest by the development plan procedure.
The second good feature is the fact that, by and large, there has been no interference with the planning provisions of the 1947 Act. The development plans are in course of preparation. There has been no fundamental interruption of that work. Planning authorities have been able to go ahead preparing their plans. There has been no alteration of any kind in the planning procedure under the 1947 Act which many of us on these benches—although it was initiated by hon. Gentlemen opposite—welcomed at the time and have continued to welcome.
Thirdly, the Bill is good because, as the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire suggested, the Exchequer has been


saved a considerable sum of money because the pay-out of the £300 million has been stopped.
Now I come to the bad. First, it is unfortunate that the Bill has created two values for land, or rather that it recognises, and in some circumstances enforces, two separate values for land. There is the market value between private purchasers who want to acquire land, and then there is the very much lower value of the existing use, with or without the Part V claim. There is the value which the State pays if it is required to compensate an owner for onerous planning restrictions or for the compulsory acquisition of his land, the lower value of existing use plus a claim under Part V of the 1947 Act with the one-seventh supplement.
I doubt whether the public conscience will long tolerate a dual value of that kind. We are already seeing the public conscience being awakened to the kind of injustices which may arise owing to this system of two-tier valuation. There has been the outcry, which was understandable, in the case of the unfortunate Mr. Pilgrim, of Romford, who took his own life because he had acquired land for £500 which was taken from him by a local authority under compulsory powers and he was paid the sum of only £65. That unfortunate man was left to face not only the loss of his land, but the fact that he had to continue to pay mortgage repayments of £4 12s. 6d. a month, or something like that, for 10 years, because he had raised money on the security of his bungalow so that he could buy the adjoining land.
That is an injustice about which, thank goodness, the Government which I have the honour to represent in my part of Scotland intend to take action. The Government intend to take action in England and I have no doubt from what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they intend to take action in Scotland. I hope that they do.
If I am right in thinking that the public conscience will not long tolerate this dual basis of valuation, in future we must anticipate that the irregularities will be ironed out according to the political con-

viction of the Government of the day. On the one hand, it might be, and I hope that it would be, if any ironing out is to be done, by recognising that compensation for compulsory acquisition or the refusal of planning permission ought to be made at full market value.
That, of course, would add to the cost of planning but it would do justice to individuals and, incidentally, it would conform to the Declaration of Human Rights to which this country subscribed in 1948 and which said that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Alternatively, if we have another kind of Government, the differences might be ironed out by some new form of enacting betterment which will have the effect of so skimming off the cream as to deprive owners of all but the existing use value of their land.
The second bad feature is the doctrine of what is called "good neighbourliness." One intention of the Bill is to pay compensation, of course on the basis of 1947 prices which we have accepted, albeit with some reluctance, on this side of the House, if a planning restriction goes beyond the conception of what Uthwatt called the duties of neighbourliness. In pursuit of this intention the Bill excludes from compensation matters which go far beyond the obligation of neighbourliness.
Many hon. Members rightly have asked that a statement should not be made unless examples can be given. I give three examples. Clause 23 says that there shall be no compensation for conditions imposed relating to the number or disposition of buildings on land. In other words, if the owner of land wishes to develop it by the erection of houses, and the normal kind of development would be 14 houses to the acre, a planning authority can say that, if the land is to be developed at all, it must be developed with houses at a density not exceeding four per acre. There will be no compensation. That is said to accord with the duties of neighbourliness.
A second example is that there is no compensation for refusal of planning permission on the ground that the development is premature. Suppose an owner of land wishes to develop it and he looks at the development plan and finds that the kind of development which he wants to make can be carried out in the area.


Then he looks at some other figure on the plan, consults the reference sheet and finds that the land can be developed in the second, or even the third, five-year plan but not immediately. That rules out all compensation. His land is sterilised for five or perhaps 10 years with no compensation, and that is said to accord with the duties of neighbourliness.
Thirdly, there is no compensation for change of use. That rules out claims for compensation in all cases of built-up areas, because when one applies for planning permission in a built-up area one is, almost always, applying for permission to change the use of the property. Where a property is already developed and the owner wants to redevelop it in some other way, he is excluded from compensation if there is a change in the use of the land and he is refused permission to do it. That is said to accord with the duties of neighbourliness. It seems to me that that phrase has been stretched to the uttermost extent, even beyond the point of what is reasonable or fair.
The House must recognise that during the Committee stage many improvements were made, and, in particular, the Committee learned with approval that a planning authority can change its plan at any time and it does not have to wait for the next five-year period. Secondly, we learned that in all these matters of the exclusion of compensation under Clauses 23 and 24 there is a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under Section 14 of the principal Act.
The third way in which I think this Bill falls far short of what is ideal is—and here I will be as brief as I can—that it changes the character of the claims which have been agreed under Part V of the 1947 Act. Hitherto, they have attached to individuals; they have been in the nature of personal property which could be traded or given away. In future, under the terms of this Bill, they are to be attached to the land. They have undergone a change of character. That being the case, it is clearly desirable that all land which has a development value should come within the scheme and not be ruled out because of some accident on the part of the previous owner or some failure to make a claim under Part V of the parent Act.
Nowhere in the Bill is provision made for those who for one reason or another failed to make a claim or whose predecessors failed to make a claim to submit a claim under Part V of the principal Act. I have always been in agreement with Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, a former distinguished chairman of the Central Land Board, who said, in this connection:
The right to claim for development value"—
at 1947—
should be reopened, or the same result obtained by other means. Surely the right to a certainty in 1954 should not depend on a failure to have entered for the sweepstake in 1947.
Let me say this, in conclusion. I think that the Bill has been improved very much during the stages through which it has passed, and I should like if I may to say this. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not mind me saying it. In fact, I think he will approve. I want to say how much we owe to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), for the indefatigable way in which he has piloted this very complicated and difficult Measure through Committee and through the House. He has shown great patience, great forbearance and willingness to be helpful, and I am sure that the improvements which have been made are due in large measure to the help that he has given to the Committee and the House in this regard.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am more confused than ever. First of all, the Lord Advocate told us that this was a Measure of a very simple nature, but its provisions are complicated and it is a complicated subject. The framework of a turbine generator is very simple; it has a terrible mechanism inside. Now we are told by the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that this Bill, although it is very complicated, has made the land problem much easier. Yesterday, when I raised with the Joint Under-Secretary of State a case in my constituency, his advice to me was, "Do not buy land that comes under planning." But now we are getting from the hon. Member for North Angus the information that it makes the buying of land much easier. We were told yesterday that it makes the buying of land more complicated.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me by saying that I said that no one should buy land at any time. What I said was that those who are buying land should inquire what the position is before they buy.

Mr. Bence: But that is just what certain people in my constituency did. They made inquiries from the county council, which was the planning authority, and they were told that the land they proposed to buy was scheduled for building houses. At least one workman in my constituency went ahead and bought this land. Now he and others who bought it have been told that they cannot build. I do not know whether this worker in my constituency is a tool maker, but I am a tool maker and I certainly shall not buy any land, following the advice of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the use of the land might be changed.
That is what happened in my constituency. These people bought this land for building houses, which was its use value last March. The planning authority had given permission for them to be built, but the National Coal Board would not give the clearance certificate and so the houses cannot be built. These working people have got this piece of land but the builders cannot build on it. When I raised the matter the only advice I got was that they should not have bought. But how are the people to get land? What is to be done for them when the use value of the land, which was house building, is changed and houses cannot be built on it? I understand that they will not get compensation for this change in use value.
I was told yesterday that these people were unfortunate, and that they had made a bad bargain. Yet they had taken every precaution in buying the land which now they cannot use. There is no compensation for them. The Coal Board cannot compensate them because there is no fund from which it can take the compensation. The planning authority who gave them permission to build the houses, which now cannot be built because they cannot get a clearance certificate, cannot pay the compensation either. From where are these people to get compensation?
I remember years ago coming across a word which I did not understand. I looked for the definition of the word in the Oxford Dictionary. The definition gave four other words and I was not quite sure of them. So I had to look them up to find out what they meant. The same position applies here. There have been explanations from the Lord Advocate, and then my hon. Friends have given us their explanations of the Lord Advocate's explanation. They are all different. That is how we seem to be working on this Bill. Everybody is seeking explanations not only of the original Bill but explanations of the explanations.
It is no use talking about this being a simple Measure. I am sorry for anybody who sets about buying a piece of land and then has to put in a claim for compensation. I know, speaking for myself, that in the future I shall steer clear of any financial dealing or investments in land, particularly when this sort of thing arises. The lawyers will make a fortune out of this Bill. I say that they are entitled to it if they can sort it out. If a couple of lawyers can sit down, study this Bill and be absolutely certain of anything in it then, in my opinion, they are geniuses. I am used to complicated machines, but I have never seen anything like this, and I have found some of the explanations in HANSARD more complicated than the actual phrases of the Bill.
My reason for intervening in the debate is to point out that a new formula has been discovered for the compensation of an owner of land who had been prevented from developing it. If it was assumed that he would receive £800 in compensation under the old formula, but actually received only £730, we are told that he would be losing £70. But he never had the £70 nor the £800; he was merely expecting to get it. Now, the Government are saying that, if the expected profit was £800, but owing to certain circumstances, it amounts to only £730, they will make up the difference.
When we brought into being the social security scheme, we established a formula whereby the old-age pensioners and the ex-Service men might expect a reasonable standard of life in the welfare State, but that formula was not right. Now, if we can alter a formula for the benefit of landlords because what they are to receive does not come up to their expectations, why cannot we also alter the for-


mula in the case of the old-age pensioners, the limbless ex-Service men and all the sick and injured, whose expectations of what they would get are not now being realised? The Government could bring in a Bill tomorrow to substitute a new formula in that case.
This is the new arithmetic of the Government Front Bench. They divide something up into seven-sevenths, and, if anybody complains that they are not getting enough, they make it eight-sevenths to make sure that they get what they want. I was absolutely disgusted when I heard the explanations of this business. It is absolutely fantastic that, because the expectation of profit out of land—the value of which has been created by the community—is not realised—because an owner who expected to get £800 is to receive only £730, so that he is said to be losing £70—we should compensate him and give him another £70.

Commander Galbraith: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will look up in the Oxford Dictionary the definition of compensation and compare it with that of profit, and then be good enough to tell us if the two coincide.

Mr. Bence: What I have discovered does coincide is this. The Treasury is prepared to pay out compensation equally on what the planning authority assumes would be the profit that would have been obtained from something could it have been sold. There is a difference in principle between what is reasonable here and what we are doing where the ordinary working people are concerned.
Some time ago, hon. Gentlemen on the other side, some of them ex-Army officers from the First World War, spoke of certain officers who had had expectations for years, but nothing had been done towards their fulfilment. In this case, as soon as the matter is brought to light, something is done about it. I know very well that if the right people lose their profits in certain ways, there are certain people who will see that they get compensation, but, when it comes to other sections of the community, it is not so easy to get that compensation, and that is what I am complaining about.
I am sorry to have included it in this debate, because I have said from the beginning that I do not know what happens under the Bill, because I do not

understand the Bill. It is a mystery to me, but I can understand now why, when people are buying houses, solicitors charge 100 guineas for the transfers of the deeds, and so on, if this is the sort of thing with which they have to deal. I have complained many times, when I have moved from place to place, of the 80 guinea fee which had to be paid every time, but if this is the sort of thing with which the lawyers have to deal, then I can understand it.
I cannot compliment right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench on the explanations they have given us. I know that they have attempted to explain the Bill, but I have had to worry some of my hon. Friends for explanations of their explanations, and some of my hon. Friends have not been too sure, either. I think that the Ministers on the Front Bench should have spent six months on this Bill in order to make themselves really acquainted with it. I cannot compliment them on the way they have explained it, because, to my simple mind, there have been no explanations at all.
I am not at all thankful for this Measure, and, as long as I am a Member of this House, if any constituents of mine asked me to get in touch with a Government Department on any problem connected with this Bill, they will be very disappointed with the services which I shall be able to render, because that task is hopeless.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I appreciate that this Bill really completes the work that was begun with the 1953 Town and Country Planning Act. I do not wish to deal at length with that point; I merely wish to say that it seems to me that the Bill gives to the owner of private land the right to exact a development value which in most cases he ought not to be entitled to receive. This is an opinion which most of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side would accept.
My reason for intervening is to bring out from this side of the House the difficulties to which the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) referred. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill brought into existence two values, and he went on to discuss the


difficulties that would arise from the existence of these two values Eventually, his suggestion was that these two values should merge and become one; that is to say, eventually the value would be the market value. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern on the question of bringing into existence in this Bill these two values, and my fear is that what is suggested by the hon. Member will, in fact, become the actual position. It is my fear; it is his hope.
It seems to me that it will be immensely difficult for public authorities to go on obtaining land, as they are entitled to do under this Bill, because of the pressure of public opinion. We have already had one example in the Pilgrim case, and it seems to me that in the future there will be very many cases of a like sort, though not such extreme cases. The situation will be very difficult and very dangerous.
In a given neighbourhood, land will come to be recognised as having a certain market value, which is, however, variable. In most cases that value expresses none of the effort that has gone into the land but is merely the price which the owner of the land can exact from those who wish to buy it, and the more desperate the need the bigger the price that can be exacted. In practice, that is what is meant by "market value" in land.
The Bill once more permits the private owner of land to sell it at whatsoever price he can obtain for it. He is freed in large part from the restrictions that were imposed upon him in 1947 by the Town and Country Planning Act of that year. He is no longer compelled to sell his land at existing use value but is permitted to make as much on it as he can. That point has been underlined by hon. Members who have spoken from the Government benches. It means that public authorities will come more and more under exceedingly great pressure in trying to buy land at existing use value plus the established claim and plus the one-seventh which has been added to the claim. They will be under pressure to buy at market value. When compulsory buying is carried out, the items that go to make up the valuation will be extremely variable. We are not dealing

with the restricted use value in 1947–48 but with an existing use value which is not fixed but is variable. It is almost as variable as market value.
It will be immensely difficult for a public authority seeking to acquire land to establish what is the existing use value, and there will be great arguments that the existing use value should be much more. How those arguments are to be settled I do not know. We have it here that the first element in the new theoretical price, existing use value, is something which cannot be fixed or tied down but must carry with it a large element of the feeling that "the land is worth as much as I can get for it."
Similar to that is the development claim, which represents the valuation placed upon possible development in 1947. The Bill says that it is a fixed claim, but from the discussion, particularly yesterday, we understand that while the claim for development value is fixed at 1947 prices and according to the estimate made in 1947, it is admitted that the development value, or development possibilities and what one is entitled to obtain for those possibilities, may be extremely variable. For example, the development value in 1947 must of necessity have been fixed according to certain purposes, such as house building, or factory building, or recreational purposes. According to the purpose for which the development value was fixed, so did the valuation change. Although the Bill lays down that the claim was fixed, development values, in the eyes of the people who own land, will be extremely variable.
Any public authority purchasing land compulsorily in the future will be under great pressure on this question also of the claim and the worth of the claim, estimated in terms of what the owner can get in development value at the present time. The second element cannot be held to be fixed but varies immensely and must vary more as time passes. The only element which is fixed is the one-seventh which is added, and which does very considerable injustice to the people themselves.
It will be increasingly difficult, although I do not say it will be impossible, and it will give rise to immense feelings of anger and bitterness, for public authorities to try to implement the terms of the


Bill. The pressure will be such that they will be compelled bit by bit to move towards that approximation which the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has described. They will be compelled to move towards market value, which means "as much as we can get for it." We are returning to the position that existed prior to the 1947 Act. This is most regrettable, It is a glaring example of concern not for the community interest but for the speculative interest of private landowners. I regret exceedingly that the Bill is of this character.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Ministers seem to have taken the Delphic oracle as their exemplar, except for the difference that when the oracle was asked for an answer it generally gave one, while Ministers, when asked to explain this complex Bill, have sat mute—mute of malice—and did not give answers to the questions.
The Bill is open to grave objections upon, among others, five grounds which I shall mention at once. The first is that its aims are narrow and partisan when they should be broad and national. The second is that its form and layout are difficult and complex. The third is that its language is obscure and unintelligible. The fourth is that the time allowed in Committee for consideration was insufficient, and even the time allowed yesterday and today is insufficient to enable us to consider all the complexities of the Bill. The fifth is that the Motion for Recommittal which was sprung on the House at the last moment yesterday did not give Members adequate notice or opportunity of knowing what they had to consider.
These and other points were made in Committee. Amendments which were put forward for the first time yesterday and today by the Government in their vain attempt to improve this bad Bill were fully and fairly argued on this side of the House, without undue prolixity; but Ministers, in the main, sat mute of malice and failed to give adequate answers to the points which were made.
The Government are culpable in these and other matters because they had before them, in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, a model of what such a Bill should be. That Act was a

model because, unlike the present Bill, its aims were broad and national and not partisan. Its form was clear, its language was intelligible, and adequate time was left by the then Government—the Labour Government of 1947—for the full and careful consideration of that Bill.
The result was that that Measure was designed and expressed in a way which could be understood by all concerned and could be, and was, administered by local authorities with success. It made clear provision for granting permission to develop land and for controlling the use of land. It conferred the necessary powers on public authorities to acquire and to develop land. It amended the law relating to compensation in a workable way. It provided for payment out of a central fund in respect of depreciation occasioned by planning authorities. All this it did with clarity and effectiveness. I am tracing—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is tracing, but really the Bill he is tracing is not now before the House.

Mr. Hughes: I am well aware of that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but surely I am entitled to show the ineffectiveness of this Bill by comparing it with its predecessor in this class of legislation. To prove what I have said, it would be necessary, if it were in order—I am afraid it is not—to pay more respect to this House than the Government have done. It would be necessary for me to point to the fact that the time allowed for the consideration of this Bill in Committee—and I am in order in saying that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—was unquestionably and absurdly insufficient. The comparable English Bill, which was a smaller Measure, was given thrice the time for consideration in Committee.
On 5th May, when the Government threatened to curtail the time for consideration of the Bill in Committee, less than half of its Clauses had been considered. The House is well aware that the shorter English Bill was given 15 days for consideration in Committee, while this Bill received only six days. I submit that that is entirely wrong in the case of a Bill of this sort which may involve questions of life and death for the people whose land is acquired and who may


be inadequately compensated for its acquisition.
My hon. Friend has just referred to the case of Mr. Pilgrim, who committed suicide owing to the way in which he was treated under legislation which permitted the compulsory acquisition of his land. There are other cases—

Mr. Woodburn: May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend? I think he has got the facts of that case wrong. Mr. Pilgrim was robbed by a private enterpriser who overcharged him for his land.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that case arises under the present Bill.

Mr. Hughes: As my right hon. Friend has said, Mr. Pilgrim's case was that of a private citizen who was robbed by another private citizen, as a result of which he was driven to suicide.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already said that that case does not arise under this Bill.

Mr. Hughes: With the very greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it arises in this way. I submit that this kind of legislation which gives power for the compulsory acquisition of land and compensation therefor may involve questions of life and death for the people whose land is so acquired. It may well be that there may be a man who invests his life's savings in a small piece of land, and then that land is compulsorily acquired under this or some similar legislation. As a result, the man may become so distraught that he is driven to take extreme measures, and even to take his life. Therefore, I beg the House to realise that it should consider legislation of this kind with the utmost care in order to avoid tragedies of that or any other kind which may result. My submission is that the manner in which this Bill has been treated by the Government and the denial of debate which has occurred—

Mr. Willis: Go on. Do not spoil your peroration.

Mr. Hughes: May I interrupt my flow, Mr. Speaker, in order to say how glad we are to see you back in the Chair? I know that you were here at Question time today, but I was not present myself

and therefore had no opportunity of saying this to you then, either in the form of a supplementary question or otherwise. May I say, Sir, how glad we are to see you back, and that we hope your health is such as to enable you to continue to preside over our deliberations?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I must ask him to stick to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: There is one further point that I wish to stress in relation to the fund out of which compensation is to be paid. The 1947 Act provided such a fund. That has been changed, and this Bill proposes to set up a different system which, in my submission, will not work. No adequate opportunity for considering the financial provisions of the Bill has been provided. I regret that, and I fear that when the Bill becomes an Act it will not operate in the way in which it should operate.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: When the Lord Advocate made his farewell speech on this Bill, he said that he had never sought to conceal its complications and complexities. He never said a truer word, because every speech he made on the Bill revealed its complexities. I must confess that the explanations which he gave, and which his right hon. and gallant Friend gave, rather underlined the complexities of the Bill, and certainly did not in many cases help us properly to understand its details.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made quite a plea for this kind of legislation being dealt with in this way. He said that it was right that Parliament should discuss and decide on as many of its details as possible and should not resort to the use of delegated legislation. I rather think that I am with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that and that I am inclined to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). But there follows from that an obvious corollary. If we are to deal with complicated legislation and are to try to envisage all the possible contingencies and circumstances that may arise affecting the provisions of the Bill and its working, then it means that Parliament must have time in which properly to consider the Bill; otherwise it is a farce.
It is no good talking about the principle of Parliament deciding the details and then denying Parliament the time properly to consider those details. We have only to consider what has happened in the last two days. We have made considerable changes in this Bill—some of them improvements. We have demonstrated weaknesses in it and the Government have promised that, in another place, they will take the necessary strengthening action. But a considerable part of this Bill was never properly considered in Committee at all, and the fact is that this important and far-reaching Measure—which in time may well involve the disbursement of millions of pounds, and which contains a very valuable principle of planning—was rushed through at a time when its important merits could not possibly have due consideration. As it now stands the Bill is incomplete. Considerable amendments have still to be made and we shall probably be hearing a little more about it in this House. I regret very much that the Government took that attitude at that time.
I shall not say very much about the complexities of the Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State complained of someone using Latin which he did not understand. I must confess that at times the only parts of the Bill which I did understand were those in Latin. It was probably just as well that the Joint Under-Secretary who is concerned with education in Scotland stayed away, because we entered the realms of algebra and arithmetic and the behaviour, under certain circumstances, of two minuses. The whole thing underlined the necessity of that proper Committee work which we were denied.
The Bill deals with a problem arising from the Government's decision to suspend the development charge. That takes us back to the original purpose of the 1947 Act. The development charge was the recognition of the fact that in the past the great barrier to proper planning was its cost. In the development charge, the buying out by the State of development values, we thought we had a way by which we could surmount this barrier to real planning. Planning is not a matter just of the countryside. There are also the centres of so many of our towns. For local authorities planning was a

financial barrier which they could not surmount.
What have we now done? Having suspended the payment of the £300 million, we have said that, development having been frustrated, the development loss shall be assessed, and compensation paid, by the State. That is dealt with in Clause 29, and it is something we cannot get away from. It is the State which shall pay compensation, so the State must decide. In essence, the State will now place itself over the local authority and decide whether or not a certain development decision by a local authority shall stand. It is my view that by Clause 29 we have once again got this financial obstacle to the actual exercise of its planning powers by the local authority. There is, of course, the further obstacle and danger to the local authority as a developer itself, a point which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson).
I am very glad that the Government decided to accept in principle the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). That, in some way, does assure us that proper consideration will be given by the Government in their decision whether to support the local authority, amend the local authority's decision or alter it altogether. But I do not want once again in Scotland to see this financial barrier standing between us and proper planning. We listen to talk about the glories and beauties of Scotland—its countryside. We see there the hand of God. Then we look at our cities and towns where man has been at work and where the hand of God is touched by the work of man. What a difference. I do not want to see this financial barrier again being used by a Secretary of State to neglect proper planning considerations because he is weighed down by the cost of compensation unless a certain development, which is the wrong development, is allowed.
The success of this Bill will depend not only on its dealing justly with those who have claims for compensation, but on whether it impedes or assists development of the right kind in the right place. I sincerely hope that in working Clauses 29 and 30 and the other relevant parts the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I must add my protest to the protests of my hon Friends on this side of the House with regard to the conduct of the Bill. There can be no doubt that it has been hurried through the House much too quickly, and as a result it is a most insufficiently inconsidered Bill. The Government had a year in which to consider the Measure before actually presenting it to the House, yet in Committee they moved batches and batches of Amendments. Then on Report they came along with new Clauses and further Amendments. It is true to say that the great bulk of the Amendments have been framed by the Government. That indicates that the Bill was never properly thought out by the Government, and already we have been promised another great wad of Amendments when the Bill goes to another place. That really is not the way to treat a complicated Measure which vitally affects every citizen and every local authority.
This Bill contains a very dangerous principle. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says, it increases the power of the Secretary of State over local authorities in regard to planning. In my view, however, it does something which is even more dangerous. It enables the Secretary of State to give varying financial rewards to people who want to develop, by the waiving of part of the payment which they might be called upon to make in respect of compensation which they have received. It gives the Secretary of State power to treat different individuals differently.
That seems to me to be quite a wrong thing to do. It is quite wrong that the Secretary of State, a political figure taking part in elections, subject to all the pressures of this House and responsible to a political party and to the State, should have it in his power to give varying financial awards to different people. That is a most dangerous practice, and I should have thought that the Government would have had second thoughts about incorporating it in this Bill.
I wish also to say a word or two about the principles of the Bill. We are told that the main Act of 1947 was not working very well. Of course, it had not been in operation so very long, and I think we might have given it rather longer

before passing judgment on whether or not it was working well. But because it did not work well, we are reversing a process that was started by that Act of regaining for the community some of the value which the community itself created. That Act endeavoured to treat the people of this country with justice. It endeavoured to secure for the people of this country the values which they themselves were creating. This Bill reverses that process and says that the values that are created by the community as a result of community effort shall be the rewards of private people—and quite a small number of private individuals.
I noticed my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) sitting here with a copy of "Our Noble Families," and I should like him to tell us how they acquired the land. These people are now to get the rewards of communal endeavour, in addition to the present ownership of the land itself. That seems to me to be quite wrong. It is a retrograde step—a step, of course, which is in accordance with other steps taken by the present Government to reward various vested interests which have supported them politically. This rewarding of landowners is a matter of political expediency. The Government have already rewarded other sections of the community. Now it is the turn of the landowners.
This Bill, as has already been indicated, is exceedingly complex. Most of us who have sat through the proceedings on the Bill and have tried to understand it still have not got a very clear picture of what it means. In fact, while listening to the Government speakers, I was convinced that they did not know what this Bill means, and by the number of notes which had to pass between the Front Bench and the Officials' Box and the meticulous care with which they were read, I am convinced that that is true.
This Bill creates a lot of work for a lot of people—legal gentlemen, planning officers, clerks and so on—and it seems to me to be quite wrong, since this country can only be saved by increasing its productivity, that we should take from the productive field people to do this type of work. I suggest seriously to the Government that if they really wish to avoid all this complex legislation, which requires for its enactment the labours of thousands of people all over the country, the best


thing to do would be to nationalise the land and give it to the people to whom it really belongs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As hon. Members will see, this Bill was presented by my noble predecessor as Secretary of State, supported by my right hon. Friend and successor as Minister of Transport, but it has fallen to me to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
The House has had many debates on the Overseas Food Corporation and what became generally known as the groundnuts scheme. In one of the last debates in which I personally took part, when the Conservative Party were in Opposition in this House, the debate in July, 1950, I suggested that it was about time that an inquiry should take place into the work of the groundnuts scheme. I suggested that this inquiry should determine whether the scheme should now be treated as part of colonial development as a whole and forthwith transferred to the Colonial Office, and I asked whether the time had not come for those who run the scheme to do so in East Africa and not in London. In effect, this is what this Bill is proposing.
The House will remember that in 1951 there was published by the late Socialist Government a Command Paper, No. 8125, initiating a proposed revision of policy in respect of the groundnuts project. This was followed in the same year by the last of the then Government's Overseas Resources Development Bills, and this Bill and the White Paper were together debated. The then Government decided, and the House endorsed the view, that the commercial production of groundnuts should be finally abandoned and the Corporation's future activities be confined to a scheme of large-scale experimental development to establish the

economies of clearing and mechanised or partially mechanised agriculture under tropical conditions. It was also decided by our predecessors, as we had long urged, that responsibility for that scheme should be transferred from the Ministry of Food to the Colonial Office, and, as an indication of the new turn of events, a representative from Tanganyika was appointed to the Corporation.
At that time the Corporation's activities were confined to three areas, all of which were in Tanganyika—Kongwa, Nachingwea and Urambo. The Command Paper set out the various proposals for each of these areas. It was then laid down that the Corporation's experiments in mechanised agriculture were to be continued up till 1957, that His Majesty's Government, as it then was, should make available £6 million by annual votes and that the annual net loss on the railway until 1957 should also be met. As the railway will also, we hope, have a long-term and vital use for East Africa, I should like to deal with the railway and the port separately but briefly a little later on.
As a result of what, I think, we all agree were very wise decisions in 1951, a large-scale reduction in the size of the enterprise was made inevitable. Certain of the fixed assets were taken over by the Government of Tanganyika. For example, much of the township of Kongwa—which, much to my regret, I did not visit—including the hospital there and the school, 25 miles of road and the airstrip, were taken over by the Tanganyika Government. At Nachingwea, which I visited some time ago, the majority of the buildings and all the electricity and water stations remained with the Corporation but roads and the air-strip were taken over and the hospital rented from the Corporation. At Urambo only the airstrip was taken over.
But, as hon. Members will remember, there are many other assets apart from these fixed assets, and the disposal of assets other than fixed assets has been carried on steadily through the machinery of the East African Disposals Board. They have had a very formidable task, and I think they deserve the congratulations of all concerned on the way in which they have carried out their task, which looks as if it should be completed


by 31st December. Their work of disposing of vast quantities of material was not made easier by coming, as it did, on top of a large military disposal of sometimes rather competitive goods in East Africa. There were, for instance, so many vehicles that the East African market could not absorb them all at remunerative prices. In addition, many of the buildings and installations were situated in remote places, populated only by members of the Overseas Food Corporation, so that they had little or no realisable value.
The House will no doubt be interested to know that the total of the assets declared surplus by the Corporation comes to a little over £7 million. Up to 31st March of this year £1,665,000 had been paid by the Corporation to Her Majesty's Exchequer. Since 31st March of this year another £410,000 has been realised, and it looks as if there ought to be about another £100,000—in respect of the goods declared surplus—still to be paid. This will make, altogether, about £2,100,000 either paid or likely to be paid to the Exchequer in return for assets of a value of about £7 million, but we must all recognise that some heavy loss was inescapable in the very nature of the winding up of the scheme.
In regard to the human aspect, which is of very great importance, there have been large-scale reductions in staff. Between 31st April, 1951, and 31st March of this year the number of Europeans employed in these schemes in Tanganyika has fallen from 1,276 to 193, but when I was in Tanganyika last week I was very glad to hear that the large majority of those originally employed have in fact settled down and are making their homes in Africa, and so will be there to provide a permanent aid to agricultural or other projects in East Africa or elsewhere.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a reduction from about 1,276. What date is he taking for that figure?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The dates were 1st April, 1951, when I understand that the figure was 1,276, and 31st March of this year, when it was down to 193. As I said, however, the large majority of those originally employed are staying in Africa, and, knowing the crying and urgent need

for responsible and active people in the agricultural field, that is not a net loss, but may turn out to be an African and Commonwealth gain. The number of Asians employed dropped from 174 to 14, and the number of Africans from 18,000 to 4,000.
The next stage, after the Bill initiated by the Labour Government, was the setting up of a Working Party, prompted by the very vigorous Governor of Tanganyika, with the full support of my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Chandos. This working party reported in January, 1953, and, with minor modifications, Her Majesty's Government have accepted the Report. This is the basis of the Bill which I now present to the House, and which I shall attempt to summarise briefly.
First, a new Tanganyikan Agricultural Corporation will be set up to take over the responsibility for the conclusion of the experimental work authorised by the Act of 1951. Meanwhile, the Government of Tanganyika have already passed the necessary enabling legislation. Secondly, in order to give recognition to the experimental nature of the Corporation's work, the balance of £6 million earmarked for the experimental work up to 1957 will be made available by annual Votes to the new Corporation, through colonial development and welfare machinery. This balance is roughly £1,600,000, but that does not mean that the rest of the £6 million has been spent. A sum of about £1½ million has been put upon one side for the railway guarantee which, under the railway proposals which I shall explain later, will now revert to Her Majesty's Government.
It is proposed to develop the three centres of operation as follows. At Kongwa—as I think most hon. Members who study this matter carefully know—the very uncertain rainfall has destroyed the hopes originally placed upon operations there, and it has been decided to turn over entirely to ranching and improving the cattle strains, though one small arable farm will be retained. Nachingwea will continue on the present lines and scale, with some 20,000 cleared acres, but increasing attention will be paid to African tenant farms. Hon. Members may remember that there are three forms of production there—productive farms, including the development of crops new to the district, similar farms


with very highly developed timing and costing machinery, and a third type of farm where the Corporation would own the land and provide the funds, and farmers would clear the land and establish themselves as semi-independent settlers. In this case there would also be very careful costing, to see whether this experiment was going to be justified.
Unfortunately there is still an absence of an economic crop of high value at Nachingwea, though some hopes are pinned upon flue-cured tobacco, for which there is undoubtedly a local need. If I say that this experiment is of particular importance it is not because it happens to be the one I know most about, having been there. This is typical of vast stretches of Africa, and from the way that this experiment works out very useful results may ensue. The pilot schemes—for that is what they are—may have long-term results for the good of Africa as a whole.
At the third centre, Urambo, the intention is to consolidate the area through settlement farming both of large- and small-scale units, and the long-term aim is to create conditions favourable for large-scale African farming. There will be up to 38 large-scale farms of about 2,000 acres to be let. Running concurrently with that will be an African tenant scheme, which it is hoped will provide for 320 tenant holdings, occupying about 12,000 acres. Members who are interested in the possibilities of African settlement will look with advantage to Command Paper 9158 and, in particular, to paragraphs 11 to 13 in the Appendix.
So much for the general proposals and the agricultural projects. I said that I would mention in more detail the port and railway development.

Sir Leslie Plummer: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves his description of the scheme for Urambo, will he say something about the flue-cured tobacco grown there?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend will deal with that matter in greater detail, but there is undoubtedly hope there, and some quite useful results have been obtained both there and at Nachingwea, where, although it has not been so proved, we have hopes that something may develop which will fulfil a local need.
In regard to the port and railway developments, anybody who attempts to deal with the problems of Africa knows the colossal importance of good communications. When the 1951 Bill was presented to Parliament by the Socialist Government, it was quite clear that the huge crops which had been expected from Nachingwea were not going to materialise and that the port and railway would not be needed on anything approaching the same scale as had been originally envisaged. The port and railway were already under construction, however, and while it was agreed that the modified proposals did not justify the port and railway on the scale proposed, as it was under construction and as the Tanganyika Government had development plans for the Southern Province, it was decided to complete the port and railway, and I, like other hon. Members, visited the port some two years ago.
A tripartite agreement has been drawn up between the Tanganyikan Government, the Overseas Food Corporation and East African Railways. It was agreed in March, 1952, firstly, that the Corporation should advance all the capital required by the railway administration to build the port and the railway and to meet four-fifths of the loss that was recognised as bound to arise for as long as it should continue. The Tanganyikan Government agreed to provide the capital cost, thought to be about £750,000, to extend the railway further and to meet one-fifth of the annual net loss, and they also said they would do their utmost with feeder roads and by general developments to bring profitable cargoes to the line. East African Railways undertook to raise a loan to repay the cost of constructing both the railway and the port.
Then came the Working Party in 1952, which recommended the end of the Overseas Food Corporation. Clearly a new approach had to be made in regard to the port and the railway, and the recommendation of the Working Party was that the commitments of the Overseas Food Corporation under the tripartite agreement should be taken over directly by Her Majesty's Government in London. The agreement is now in draft form, and it will provide as follows.
The Overseas Food Corporation, which is, in this sense, Her Majesty's Government, will waive repayment by the Railway of all cash advances up to 31st March last year with interest thereon and will also waive the interest on all advances made after that date up to the time of signing. The Tanganyika Government, for their part, will assume responsibility for the annual net loss on both the port and the railway from the time the agreement is drawn up, and the Railway will repay to Her Majesty's Government in London all cash advances made under previous agreements after 31st March of this year plus any interest accruing as from the date of the agreement.
This seems to all of us, to all the parties concerned, to be a sensible arrangement. It had been hoped that the railway and port could have been built for £4½ million. In the event, they have cost some £6 million. It is obviously vital to reduce the capital investment to a bearable figure, for at £6 million, with the relatively limited cargoes it will have to carry in the early years, it would be heavily over-capitalised, and so the Government have in effect agreed to wipe off the capital advances which, with interest, total some £4,200,000 and so to reduce the capital on the port and railway to a sum of about £2½ million. In return the Government are relieved, in particular, of their continuing guarantee to underwrite four-fifths of any loss on the Railway.
This appears to be a sensible arrangement, and this Railway will, I hope, be decisive in playing an important part in the development of the Southern Province, and, perhaps, be of even wider importance.
There is one Clause in the Bill to which I ought to draw the particular attention of the House because it has nothing to do with the Overseas Food Corporation; but, as all Governments find, so we found that this was a useful opportunity for righting an injustice so far as the Colonial Development Corporation is concerned. The Clause is Clause 5. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) asked me a Question today about it. I can understand that he now refreshes his memory by looking up Clause 5. It does deal with, anyhow, one part of the point he had in mind.

Mr. James Johnson: Only one part.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Only one part. Opportunity has been taken to remit the interest on money advanced to the Colonial Development Corporation by the Exchequer and lost on schemes that have been abandoned. I am not going to rake over past controversies either of the Overseas Food Corporation, wound up, in effect, by my predecessors, or in the field of colonial development activities; but it is quite clear that the present Colonial Development Corporation cannot be blamed for schemes that have gone wrong and that it is singularly hard that it should have to present anything other than a creditable front to the world when making such good efforts to put its own house in order. So this Clause permits remission of interest on money advanced to the Corporation by the Exchequer and lost on abandoned schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Chandos, had a talk with Lord Reith about this in 1952. Both agreed that it was unreasonable to continue to require payment of interest for 40 years on Exchequer advances that had been lost on abandoned schemes or on schemes that were later found to have to be abandoned. As the House knows, to abandon a scheme the Corporation has to get the permission of the Secretary of State who, in his turn, has, to put it mildly, to keep in touch with the Treasury.
It was hoped at the time to be able to go further than this and to use this Bill to write off the capital as well as the interest of some of the earlier schemes, and Lord Reith was told in August, 1952, that the Government would legislate at the same time as for the interest, for a once-for-all writing down of the debt of the capital lost on any scheme that had been inherited from the previous administration and which it had already been decided to close down. By the term "previous administration" I do not mean political administration, but the previous Development Corporation administration. Later the qualifying date was fixed at 31st December, 1953, and the sum involved would have been £4 million.
But Lord Reith and the Colonial Development Corporation did not think this went far enough. They wished also to write off the losses on many schemes which they felt were over-capitalised and


also other schemes that had not been abandoned with approval by 31st December, 1953; and the total amount that would have been then written off was some £8 million. Their argument was quite understandable. They said the public would feel that any writing off of capital would mean they were starting with a clean slate, and they said they would not be so starting.
The Government's view, it seems to me, is even more reasonable, that losses on any of the schemes still in operation, if any losses, are a matter of speculation, and that, in the interests of the taxpayers, it would be unwise to take this step; and the view they also hold to be important is that what matters in the Act is not whether the Corporation can meet its capital charges on individual schemes but whether, taking one year with another, it is able to meet its service charges on its capital from its total revenue. I think that both the Colonial Development Corporation and the Government agreed to differ on that, but, as a result, Lord Reith and the Corporation declined the proffered underwriting of £4 million, and the only action that it is now possible to take is to remit the interest, as in Clause 5.

Mr. J. Johnson: What is the amount actually? How much will it be? We hoped for £8 million, say, and £4 million was offered, but what is the amount now?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We thought that £4 million represented a fair figure for schemes already abandoned with approval, but they thought that might give a misleading impression to the public, and rather than accept £4 million they preferred to stay as they were without anything at all. I have no doubt that they may wish to re-open the matter themselves, but, as far as the Government are concerned, we made what we thought was a fair offer. I regret they have not taken it up.

Mr. John Dugdale: What is the amount of interest remitted?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is quite a substantial sum. I will ask my right hon. Friend to give the exact figure before the debate is over if, as I think, we can give it.
There are only two other general points that I want to make. In the White Paper we have said that we hope that the date

of transfer to the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation would be 1st October of this year. Circumstances have made that impossible, and, with the full agreement of the Overseas Food Corporation and the Government of Tanganyika, the date of transfer will now be 1st April, 1955. When that date falls it is proposed that the Government of Tanganyika will appoint Mr. Gillett, the present Chairman of the Overseas Food Corporation, as Chairman of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation. I shall then name my nominee to the Board. On that day the assets and the liabilities of the Overseas Food Corporation will vest in the new Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation.
Whatever lessons many people in this country have learned from the experiences of the last few years, no one, I believe, could feel anything but confidence in the chairmanship of Mr. Gillett and in the people who are working with him in Tanganyika. I saw something of him and of his colleagues when I was recently in Dar-es-Salaam and all I saw then confirmed the impression that I had formed when, as Minister of State, I was in the territory two-and-a-half years ago.
The vigour and enterprise with which they have faced extraordinarily difficult conditions, the loyalty which they have found in their staff, and their general courage and imagination augur very well for the future. They themselves fully recognise the need to build steadily on proved foundations. I am confident that they will play an essential part in the development of Tanganyika. I spent a very happy week in that Tanganyika territory where they will now operate and saw much of the African, Asian and European communities who have had and will have an immense part to play in the future development of Tanganyika.
Her Majesty's Government have heavy responsibilities in this field, apart from the colonial development and welfare machinery, for which, for the time being, I am responsible. I shall also nominate to the Board. Her Majesty's Government alone are responsible for the Government of Tanganyika under the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement. Of course, the Trusteeship Council of U.N.O. have an important rôle to play. It is for them to see how the territory is being governed.


and when they see fit to make recommendations for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. We shall always pay close regard to what they say, but it is for Her Majesty's Government to decide whether or not to accept those recommendations.
There is one thing on which we can all agree, and that is on the prime importance of agricultural development in Tanganyika. I think we are all confident, too, that under the brilliant leadership of the present Governor, Sir Edward Twining, and with the massive help which the experience of these new officers will bring, the territory will grow in prosperity and will play the very large part in the future history of Africa and the world which its natural resources in men and in materials amply justify.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should like to begin, if I may, by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion to his present office. I had it in mind to suggest to him that the post must be a very welcome change to him from that he previously held. In his previous Department, as far as we could see from this side of the House, he spent his time wrecking a very fine transport scheme which the Labour Government had instituted. I noticed, however, that when he began his speech he indicated that he was still busy trying to sell secondhand lorries and other vehicles, so possibly the change has not been quite as drastic as we had at first supposed. At any event, he now occupies a very great and creative office and we wish him well in it.
The Bill opens a new chapter in what is not altogether a very happy story. The original project was for the production of oils and fats by growing very large quantities of groundnuts in East Africa. As we all know, that scheme has had to be abandoned. I have no doubt that those of my hon. Friends who have had more experience on the spot than I will be able, later in the debate, to go into greater detail than I propose to do on the difficulties that arose, many of which, apparently, are still there and which, between them, have meant that the original very fine scheme has had to be abandoned.
Before I pass to the Bill itself, I cannot help reminding hon. Members opposite that for a number of years they have

used this scheme to belittle and to criticise the Labour Government of 1945–50. With them it has been a standing joke for years. They have assiduously led the public to believe that the whole adventure was a wild-cat scheme instituted by a spendthrift Labour Government and entered into by that Government quite lightheartedly. I see that hon. Members opposite smile and nod in agreement. They obviously do not know the facts.
The facts are that this scheme took its rise out of a suggestion by Mr. Frank Samuel, who was then the managing director of the United Africa Company, which is a subsidiary of Unilevers. The company was a trading concern engaged in finding oils and fats for Lever Brothers. No one in the commercial and business world, I think it is safe to say, knew more about the potentialities in this area than Mr. Frank Samuels, and those associated with him in this company. He and they were quite certain that this scheme was not only sound, but would produce in vast quantities the oils and fats which the world then needed.
The Government of that time, being more cautious than many people have since admitted, sent out a special mission of experts to check on what Mr. Frank Samuel and those associated with him had said. What did the mission say on its return? It said that if the scheme were started in 1947 it would produce 600,000 tons of groundnuts by 1950–51, and it also said that 800,000 tons could be produced soon after that. It asserted that the scheme could be put into operation on a strictly business basis and that it would be financially sound. It also added—and hon. Members opposite should remember this—that the nature and scope of the project ruled out private enterprise as the permanent owners of the operation.
I hope that hon. Members opposite, if they wish to be fair, will remember this in future when they are dealing with groundnuts on the public platform, because it is obvious from the facts that if a Tory Government had been in office in 1946–47, and had had this report placed before them, they would have acted in exactly the same way as did the Labour Government of that day.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I deliberately refrained from going into past controversies because, in the interests of the people


to whom these tasks will fall in future in Tanganyika, I wanted them to start with the feeling that they are beginning on another great enterprise, based on careful planning. I could have made a very different speech, but I think it would have been unworthy of the opportunities which lie ahead.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not take exception to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but we have sat silent on this side of the House for a number of years.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: No.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is perhaps the last opportunity we shall have of putting the facts before not only the House but the country at large and I think that I am entitled, quite briefly, to remind hon. Members of what the situation was then. Hon. Members opposite will remember that the late Mr. Oliver Stanley not only spoke in favour but was enthusiastic about the scheme as one which should be supported and, which would, in fact, give the world the much needed oils and fats it then needed.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: I think that it is only fair to mention that the late Mr. Oliver Stanley, in the debate on the 6th November, 1947, did add a word of caution. I will quote his words. He said:
Do not let us, in discussing the future of these schemes, raise people's hopes too high, either as to their magnitude or, still less, as to the speed at which they can be carried out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 2039.]
He did add that word of caution in the initial stages.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I accept that, of course. He was only emphasising what the Government themselves had said in their White Paper. The White Paper pointed out that vast agricultural operations of this kind, involving the use of all the latest techniques of mechanised production, in remote and undeveloped areas clearly involved serious risks. I will not read any more, but the paragraph went on to indicate what some of these risks were. The late Mr. Oliver Stanley was only reiterating what the Government themselves had said on this matter.
I think that the House is inclined to forget that at that time we were assured

that there would be not only a shortage of fats for the next four or five years but, so the experts of the United Africa Company asserted, there would be a shortage for at least 10 or 20 years. Therefore, no Government in office at that time—and I say this with some confidence—whatever their complexion, would have turned down out of hand a scheme of this kind, put forward with such confidence by the experts who knew, if anybody did, both the world situation and the needs of this country.
There were other reasons—and these are the reasons which I
hope we shall tonight bear most in mind—why the Labour Government thought that this scheme should go forward in spite of the known risks. These were that not only was there a world shortage of oils and fats, together with their by-products such as cattle cake and the like, but that there was then, as there is now, an overwhelming need to assist the economic and social advance of the native population.
I want to say, in welcoming this Bill, as we do, that we should put the needs of the African population and others who live there in the forefront. We must, so it seems to us, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees, do all that is humanly possible, even if it does cost a certain amount of money, to help those who live in East Africa to raise their standard of life, not only because it helps them to rise in the scale of humanity but also because it will help presently to provide markets for consumer and capital goods from this country. Under the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has outlined, there will, too, be an opportunity, and a very much needed opportunity, to help Africans to employ better agricultural methods than they at present employ.
Those of us who have seen something of how they treat the land and the way in which it is allowed to deteriorate through soil erosion realise that anything which this country can do to assist the natives to farm by better methods will be all to the good.
The right hon. Gentleman indicated that already the cost has been considerable, but he also went on to say that that money has not all been lost. There are considerable assets still there, and I am glad to think that under this Bill those which are essential are to continue


to be used. In any case, we ought not to look at this matter purely from the point of view of what it is costing in money. I remember that last year, when the Government took feedingstuffs off the ration sooner than they should have done, they had to import millions of tons of barley.
I do not know what that has cost the taxpayer, but I have been told, although I do not know exactly, that it has cost anything up to £26 million. I may be wrong, but, at any rate, it is a considerable sum, and we should not object to this money being spent here. We have to put these things into perspective. I am sure that the money which is involved here is by no means excessive compared with some other expenditure embarked upon by the Government, and will be money well spent.
Let me come to the present Bill. As I have already indicated, we support the proposals contained in it. They not only follow the White Paper which the Government issued last May but, in the main, they also follow the White Paper issued in 1951 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Strachey). There are, however, certain questions which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the debate.
I listened very carefully to the Minister and it occurred to me that he was probably a little too optimistic as to just how much Tanganyika can bear of the undoubted burden which will now be placed on that area. For example, we—and very properly so—are agreeing to wipe off £3½ million of the capital outlay and interest on the railway and harbour at Mtwara. I understand that about £2½ million is left. Having gone so far, could not the Government see their way to wipe off the whole of the £6 million? After all, these amenities are not only going to be of the utmost benefit to Tanganyika but, as I think the Minister himself indicated, the railway may soon be extended and be of much greater use to other areas in the interior.
I do not know whether it is possible that at some time—I hope it will be at no distant date—that railway may be extended to Lake Nyasa and presently become an outlet to the sea for Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland

itself. This would be an alternative to running a railway from the Rhodesias through what is mainly desert to Walvis Bay on the other coast. We should be careful to see that when the final agreement is made about the future of the railway and harbour we do not drive too hard a bargain.
I should like the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs to say whether the Tanganyika Government at any time indicated that it feared the burden left upon it was more than it could bear and whether it really did acquiesce without question in being left with the £2½ million or more on these transport undertakings.
There is reference in the White Paper to the Railway and Harbour Authority agreeing to complete the project. Does this mean that the railway is not yet completed, or does it mean that work has still to be done on the harbour? If either project is not yet finished, that adds point to what I have already said—that when we have a clearing-up of this kind with the Tanganyika Government and the new Corporation, we should not be two niggling but should be as generous as possible.
I should like to refer to the crops which it is proposed to grow in the three areas. The Secretary of State told us that, as is mentioned in the last White Paper, Kongwa must be considered almost a complete write-off. The Corporation are to go in for cattle breeding, but as far as the raising of crops is concerned they will not waste any more money there, certainly on substantial schemes.
Is that decision really final? Now that the land has been cleared at such enormous expense, a greater effort surely should be made to utilise it rather than let some of it, at any rate, revert to the tsetse fly and the bush. I remember that in the Northern Province of Tanganyika, during the war—I, with others, visited the area—a great deal of wheat was grown on land occupied by the Masai tribe—the last tribe, I believe, in Africa to continue to wear skins. At the behest of the Provincial Commissioner, they agreed temporarily, because of the war, to allow wheat to be grown on vast areas in the Northern Province, and I believe that much wheat was grown there with great success.
Why can wheat be grown there but not further south? I know there is the difficulty about rainfall, but that surely applies to most parts of Africa. So much money having been spent and the need being so great, something should be done to see whether, even now, Kongwa cannot be more used for substantial crops as well as cattle raising.
The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to cotton. In the Southern Province of Nyasaland, the natives grow it in rows between the mealy meal that they produce for their own food. Every Christmas Day, they attend at the Board's centre and are given the seed. Later, they gather the cotton, bring it to the centres, where it is weighed and paid for, taken across Portuguese East Africa, and eventually finds its way here. If cotton can be grown there, and has also, I understand, been grown with some success in Southern Rhodesia, why should attempts not be made to cultivate it in Tanganyika? Anyhow, we ought not to stop short, if we can avoid it, of using this land for crop raising of some kind.
We on this side of the House heartily approve of the tenant scheme. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I have gathered the impression that it will be confined almost entirely to Africans and that no Europeans will be allowed to work any of the farms. I suggest that that policy is wrong. The African already knows too little about agriculture and it is an excellent thing for him if he can be farming side by side with Europeans, who know more and who, more often than not, are conversant with up-to-date agricultural methods.
As the land is there and as we have a multi-racial community in any case in Tanganyika, and as much of the land earlier was quite uninhabited, I see no reason why some of these farms should not be let to Europeans if they would like to have them. It would be good for the European and it would be certainly good for the native, because each can learn something from the other.
What is happening to the Europeans who have been dismissed? I believe that the number was originally about 1,600, and the right hon. Gentleman told us that it had now been run down to about 173. This means that about 1,500 Euro-

peans have been dispensed with within a few years. I know that the suggestion was made that they should get six months' pay, but it may be that, having been out there for many years and become acclimatised, many of them could be extremely useful if they remained in that area. I should like the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs to say how many of them have stayed on and what provision, if any, has been made for their future.
The White Paper makes rather depressing reading. The prospect really is that in spite of the money that has been spent and the thousands of acres that have been cleared, the experiment so far has not been very successful. Certain farms, it is true, are to be set up and there has been some success in cattle breeding and ranching. In one area progress has been made in growing tobacco. But one crop is not enough. I remember the tobacco farmers in Northern Rhodesia complaining bitterly because of the price that they got in some years for their crops. Sometimes they had to go out of business because the effective demand for what they could grow had ceased. That is not the proper way to set up an economy of the right kind in Tanganyika.
I therefore hope that when the Bill becomes an Act and the scheme goes forward, as I am sure it will, every attempt will be made to grow not simply the easy crops like tobacco, sorghum and, perhaps, a certain amount of groundnuts in areas where the rainfall permits, but that a real effort will be made to find other products which can be obtained from what Sir James Russell, in his book, "World Population and World Food Supplies," says is believed by many to be the largest area in East Africa where the potential for production is greater than anywhere else.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), in dealing with the Bill, has reminded the House of the origins of the scheme. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that in the circumstances of the Bill, when we start off in an entirely new atmosphere, it was a mistake to raise that aspect of the matter; but since the right hon. Gentle-


man has done so, it is well to remind the House of what he said.
The right hon. Gentleman said that no Government would have turned down the scheme out of hand. I suggest, however, that no Government of the party on this side of the House would have accepted the scheme out of hand, and that the real trouble is that it was accepted too much out of hand without proper consideration and without careful consideration of one of the things that the right hon. Gentleman himself emphasised—the needs of the native population. The essence of the present scheme is to meet the needs of the native population.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must know that the Government of that day did not accept the scheme out of hand. Experts were sent out, and I think they were out there some months. It was on their report that the scheme was accepted, and the whole proposition was put before the House and accepted by all sides.

Mr. Bernard Braine: Yes, but this House was deceived as to its progress.

Mr. Macpherson: The great trouble about the scheme was that it was launched without the fullest consideration of the needs of the scheme itself; without the fullest consideration of the needs of the European manpower to carry out the scheme; without consideration of the needs of the native manpower and its requirements; without consideration of the needs of the machinery to deal with the scheme; and without any consideration of any proper pilot schemes to see how the thing would work. Only now are we finding out these facts. Only now are we finding out the nature of the climate and the potentialities of the country itself.
We know the way the scheme is to run in the future. It is to be geared to the needs of the country itself rather than to hypothetical requirements of oils and fats in this country and in the world markets. I understand that the tobacco crop is to be produced for the needs of the country itself and not for our market here. We welcome all that very much indeed, and secondly, we welcome the fact that the scheme is to be run from the country itself. I would remind the House

that in the debate in 1950 my right hon. Friend very prophetically asked:
… whether the scheme should now be treated as part of colonial development as a whole and forthwith transferred to the Colonial Office; whether the time has not come for those who run the scheme to do so in East Africa and not from London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2048.]
It is peculiarly appropriate, therefore, that almost the first action of my right hon. Friend as Secretary of State is to introduce into this House a Bill so much in line with what he said in days gone by. The foresight he has exercised in the past is a very good augury for the foresight we are confident he will exercise in the future in order to safeguard the interests of the populations for which he is now responsible. In these tasks we wholeheartedly wish him the greatest success in the world, a sentiment which I am sure will be supported on both sides of the House.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope the hon. Gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him again, but this will be the last time I shall do so. He is forgetting that the Labour Government, when the scheme was introduced, visualised—as can be found in Command Paper 7030, at page 8—handing this scheme over to the local people as and when it was in working order. It was hoped it might be run on a co-operative basis.

Mr. Macpherson: But the scheme was never operative and it is only now, after repeated demands from the party on this side of the House, that the scheme has been reduced to manageable proportions and in future is to be run on reasonable lines.
There are one or two points which I hope to raise at the Committee stage and with which I do not propose to deal now at any length; but one of the questions about which we would like to have an answer from the Minister of State this evening is this: To what extent is it going to be practicable and desirable to retain the assets as belonging to this country? As I understand the Bill, the assets existing at the present time remain the property of Her Majesty's Exchequer. They can be replaced, but as and when they are disposed of the proceeds will be repayable to Her Majesty's Exchequer. In the meantime my right hon. Friend,


with the consent of the Treasury, retains control of them.
But the scheme may grow. More money may be put into it by the Tanganyika Government. Further experiments may be made by that Government, and no doubt we are going to have a partnership which is desirable. I am wondering whether this is the best possible way in which that partnership can be worked. After all, what the assets will represent will be an interest-free debenture of an unspecified amount which, if they are realised, will return to the Treasury. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in replying to this debate, will deal with this aspect of the matter.
We hope that, through the means of the colonial development and welfare funds that are to be placed at the disposal of the new organisation, there will be great and growing success every year. We also consider that that is the right form in which this kind of pilot scheme should be conducted. But it does not follow that, where colonial development and welfare funds are expended, the assets should necessarily remain the property of Her Majesty's Government in this country. It may be that that is not only a justifiable course, but the right course to follow. I trust that my right hon. Friend, when replying to the debate, will make clear why that course is being adopted. I am not quite certain whether it is easiest for him to deal with that on Second Reading or in Committee when we shall be concerned with the Clause itself. At any rate, I hope my right hon. Friend will say something about it tonight. There are one or two minor points on which I shall seek clarification. in Committee.
With these remarks, I should like to give a very sincere welcome to the Bill, and express the hope that the long-term experiments in the way of co-operative farming and development of new primary products in Tanganyika may be brought to the fullest fruition.

7.39 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: In the remarks that I have to make on this Bill, tonight I hope I shall not be accused of doing anything to dampen the enthusiasm of those men, Europeans, Asians and Africans, who are to be responsible for carrying on the scheme which the

right hon. Gentleman has outlined. The fact is that I have to retail to the House some parts of the history of this scheme and I do it because I think, running through its history, are certain aspects which should be understood carefully if the new Corporation is to avoid at least some of the difficulties which the Overseas Food Corporation originally encountered.
Many of the members of the staff of the new Corporation worked with me from the period 1948 to 1950, and to them I would give the advice which the Bishop of Lincoln gave the young Mr. Gladstone when confirming him at Eton. The bishop advised him to adopt a liberal religion, avoiding on the one hand the pitfalls of enthusiasm and, on the other, the dangers of lukewarmness. I am sure, however, that such advice is not necessary from me, because anyone who has worked in Tanganyika under the difficult conditions existing there will at least temper his enthusiasm with a certain amount of reasonable lukewarmness.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Samuel. When Mr. Samuel brought this scheme to the attention of the then Minister of Food, he was as convinced as any man in his organisation, and as any man who had any experience of African development, could be convinced of the viability of the scheme that was introduced. He thought that two and a half million acres of land in Tanganyika could be cleared at the cost of approximately £8 million and could produce the oil seeds of one kind or another of which not only he, but the whole nation, was in urgent need.
I must remind the House that the fats ration of this country was then 7 oz. a week. It was about the lowest fats ration of any country in Europe. Mr. Samuel believed, on the expert advice available to him, that at no time in the foreseeable future—and here I quote the very words he used to me—could this country rely on getting a reasonable supply of the necessary cooking fats, margarine and soap unless there were developed great new enterprises of the kind which he envisaged. As a business man, with his vast experience and with all the ramifications of his huge international concern at his command, Mr. Samuel believed that this job could be done for £8 million—a trifling sum


against the background of the sum ultimately spent—and that the produce could be brought to this country in a very short time.
One hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government went into this scheme too haphazardly. When the Wakefield Mission, consisting of the ex-Director of Agriculture for Tanganyika, the plantations manager for the United Africa Company and an economist and banker, had returned from their search for suitable land for development, their conclusions were vetted most carefully by an inter-Departmental committee consisting of agricultural experts from the Colonial Office, financial experts from the Treasury and members of the staff of the Ministry of Food. As the House will know, they had spent many weeks in an aeroplane travelling in three countries and looking for 3 million acres of land.
I had nothing to do with the Corporation at the time those deliberations were going on, so I am speaking from hearsay, but in the course of my chairmanship of the Overseas Food Corporation I was constantly reminded of the fact that a Select Committee had not accepted the recommendations of the Wakefield Mission, just as the Wakefield Mission had not accepted the recommendations of Mr. Samuel, but had gone to enormous trouble to check every figure, to balance every conclusion which had been reached and had, in fact, amended to some extent the recommendations of the Wakefield Mission.
At this stage it is important that we should remember the atmosphere in this country at the time the scheme was mooted. It was an atmosphere that was responsible for the rush to join the staff of the United Africa Company Managing Agency, which began this scheme, of the young group captains of the Royal Air Force, of the young lieutenant-colonels of the Army and of the young commanders of the Navy who had done extremely well during the war. The scheme was described by the Wakefield Mission as one that had to be conducted on the basis that time was of the essence, and these young men saw that it should be conducted as a military operation.
That was the atmosphere of the scheme, and it was an attraction which these

young people could not resist. Consequently the scheme recruited into its ranks young men, and young women too, who were thrilled by its breadth of vision. They believed that they could do a good job in trying to get fats for the country and at the same time raising the standard of life of the African people. From the experience of this nation in the war years they believed that this big scheme, handled in a big and all-enveloping fashion, was bound to succeed. Indeed, that was in the minds of the Mission and in the mind of Mr. Frank Samuel—that we had learned such techniques during the war, that we had so mastered the many greater and far more important problems, that this scheme would be a great success if it were given an opportunity. And backed very largely by informed opinion in this country the scheme began under the aegis of the United Africa Company Managing Agency.
Because of the continuing and growing shortage of fats, the Government decided that it was necessary that the scheme should not wait for the final approval of the House of Commons, but that the work should begin before the setting up of the Corporation was passed. May I remind the House again that the approval of Parliament was unanimous. It was the late Oliver Stanley himself who agreed that it was a risky but worthwhile scheme, that the risk was too great for private enterprise to operate—indeed Mr. Samuel underlined this point—and that therefore the only way in which it could be done was in the form of a public corporation.
Almost as soon as the scheme started its operations, it was clear that most of the conclusions of the Wakefield Mission, or of the special committee formed to consider it, were wrong and were based on wrong premises. However, it is true to say that everybody concerned with the scheme even at that stage showed a considerable general optimism about its prospects, and this was pointed out in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which studied the accounts of the Overseas Food Corporation for the year 1948 to 1949.
When the advance party went out to East Africa it decided, against the advice of the Wakefield Mission which favoured starting in the South, that it should begin


operating the groundnuts scheme on the plain of Kongwa. It did so because there were no reasonable communications in the Southern Province, but there was a single track railway from Dar-es-Salaam running 250 miles to within 20 miles of Kongwa and it was believed that the construction of a spur line from the plain of Kongwa to that railway would give the necessary facilities for a large-scale clearing operation to begin in the terms and forecasts of Command 7030.
Straight away the Managing Agency ran into the problem set by the fact that there is no all-weather road from Dar-es-Salaam, the only port of entry, to Kongwa. There were no building materials of any kind since the trees that grow in Kongwa are unsuitable for building, being beobab and thorn. The result was that the members of the staff of that Agency, followed by the members of the staff of the Overseas Food Corporation, had to live for many months in tents. They had to sleep, work and eat in tents which were subject at all times to very high winds which are a common feature of Kongwa.
The Managing Agency argued, and the people in East Africa agreed with them, that Kongwa offered great possibilities, for the rainfalls of the districts were at least satisfactory. Here we come to one of the problems which I am certain will face the new Corporation. There are no rainfall statistics in Tanganyika on which anybody could place complete reliance. The nearest rainfall statistics for the Kongwa area are kept at a Government veterinary centre at Mpapwa.
There was a Church mission three or four miles beyond Kongwa which had reported rainfall but it was not realised at that time that there was a range of hills between these places and the Kongwa plain and that the rain appeared to fall on the wrong side of the mountains. There were no statistics available to anybody in Tanganyika because they were not being kept. It was against that background that the Managing Agency had to start its work, although the Wakefield Mission had said in its Report that the annual rainfall to be expected was some 20 to 30 inches.
In the same year minor operations were started at Urambo, where those concerned were more fortunately placed with a railway bisecting the area; but

there were no suitable roads and there was no reliable water supply. In the Southern Province not much more than reconnaissance work was done during that year. It had been assumed that it would be possible to get into Tanganyika the enormous amount of stores and materials which were necessary to the scheme through the port of Dar-es-Salaam, but that port is today an inadequate port for any great scheme of development. For one thing, part of it, called Belbase, is in the possession of the Belgian Government. It was ceded to them by treaty. It is a lighterage port and the railway was not sufficiently powerful to carry the necessary goods into Tanganyika.
These difficulties which were experienced by the Managing Agency, however, did not dampen the enthusiasm of that group of men, for in January, 1948, on the basis of the information that had been supplied to the Government, a progress report of the first six or seven months of the scheme was produced and published as a White Paper, Cmd. 7314. It is right at this stage that I should quote from the concluding paragraph 26 of that document. It states:
There is, however, no more reason now than there was a year ago to doubt that the whole scheme—modified here and there as to its details in the light of the experience continually being gained—can be carried out on the broad lines and within the time schedule set out in Command 7030.
It was at this stage, with the publication of that Report which showed the optimism of the Managing Agency, that the Overseas Food Corporation took over the scheme by virtue of the passing of the Overseas Resources Development Act. It is right to say that from that day the broad outline of the scheme has been reduced steadily over the years. The first thing that the Overseas Food Corporation did was to say that the original target of 3,210,000 acres could not be achieved, that it was too optimistic, and that in any case one million of the acres would present such difficulty that it would be impossible to proceed on that basis.
The Corporation, in consultation with the Ministry of Food, reduced the whole project to 600,000 acres at a proposed cost of £48 million. Why was it forced to do that? The experts who had been giving advice both to the Managing Agency and to the Corporation had put


forward arguments that an acre of land in Tanganyika could be cleared in two hours for £3 7s. 4d., that 3,210,000 acres could be cleared in the period 1947–52, and that 1,605,000 acres could be growing groundnuts by 1952. The House should note the preciseness of the figures. They also said that 609,034 lbs. could be produced annually by 1951 and, taking the cost of production at something like £14 a ton, a surplus of about £17 would be available on existing oil prices.
The Corporation has been accused of not facing the facts, but it did face the facts. It made it quite clear that it was impossible to achieve the figures that had been recommended and on which the scheme had been based. The Corporation was engaged in the task of revising its target and of trying to readjust and continue operations at one and the same time. It was having to do that against a barrage of ill-informed and in some cases malicious criticism of every action that it took.
If the Corporation in its wisdom decided that it was in the interest of the safety of its employees that it should sign a contract to have them carried in one corporation's aeroplanes against another company's aeroplanes, that was described as a squalid deal. In fact, everything that the Corporation did from the moment that it took over was criticised, and it is significant that there was no criticism of the Managing Agency. The staff and officers of the Corporation were subjected, not to informed criticism, which they welcomed, not to good advice, which they always wanted, but to a constant barrage of innuendo and attack which shook the nerve of some of the strongest people in the Corporation.
It was against that background that the Corporation had to face its most appalling difficulties. I think that some of the newspaper leader writers who had never gone further south than Juan les Pins would have been well advised to go out and spend a few weeks living and working in the conditions which some of the Corporation's staff had to suffer. The Corporation had to go on with the development of houses, hospitals, roads, bridges, harbours, railways, workshops and warehouses. It had to do all this against the real difficulty which it was experiencing very largely because the

advice given by experts had proved to be quite worthless.
There is, of course, one stage of the development of the Corporation's activities of which I am particularly proud. It is the establishment of some fine hospitals in Tanganyika, which were costly beyond all our imagination. One of the reasons they were costly was that the doctors refused under all circumstances to turn anyone away. They were not exclusively for the use of the Corporation's staff. When Africans walked—as they did—hundreds of miles because it was the only available hospital and brought their women and children hundreds of miles, because there was no medical service for them either, those doctors said, "We are not going to ask who these people are, where they work, nor whether they can pay; they are going to be treated as suffering people." The Corporation, to its everlasting credit, accepted the doctors' view. But these were part of the costs which the Corporation had to meet and which were never envisaged by anyone. These were the on-costs of the scheme.
I hope that, as a result of this Bill, nothing will be done to impede the technical training of Africans. What this scheme has brought to Tanganyika and to Africans in Tanganyika is hope. When Africans, who are a primitive people, have left their mud huts only six months ago and are working at erecting telephone wires, as hospital orderlies, truck drivers, or semi-skilled workers and are proficient at those jobs after but six months' training, the African has real hopes that he may really become a useful member of society and not be condemned to that dark, short, brutish life which Sir Philip Mitchell has described as the African's lot. Another of the attainment of the Corporation which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants to see go on is the continued development of this work, even though it is costly, even though occasionally Africans run berserk and forget the lessons given to them.
It has been said tonight that it would have been a good thing if the Overseas Food Corporation and those responsible for the scheme had operated pilot schemes before they went in for large-scale operations. But pilot schemes were in operation. It is the terrible tragedy of the scheme that the conclusions produced by pilot schemes were quite fallacious


when related to wider schemes. I will give an example. In 1947, 9,000 acres of land were planted. Nine thousand acres, spread about Kongwa as they were, constituted ideal pilot projects. It is no good believing that one can develop vast areas on results achieved by growing plants on 9,000 acres, which constituted what looked like an absolutely invaluable series of pilot projects. The conclusion to be drawn proved to be quite erroneous.
What happens in Kongwa and other parts of Tanganyika is that the land alters so rapidly. Land in even half a square mile is composed of soil which, when cultivated, reacts in one way on one side and in an entirely different way from the land by its side. Such differences are not found until one has the machines working and work is being done on a really big scale. The results which had been achieved from small-scale trial plots were terribly misleading.
It was quite easy for people in a scientific research department to produce as much as one ton of shelled groundnuts to the acre, but that is not a conclusion that anyone should adopt, for the more one develops the scheme the more disproportionate do the problems grow. Areas where pilot projects were started gave an indication that there was no danger of disease, yet in Uramba crop after crop was destroyed by rosette disease. No one knows the answer to that problem.
As the years have gone by every document produced by the Corporation has had to amend the previous document produced by the Corporation because it was only by doing the job in the field that the results could be discovered. I hope, therefore, that the staff of the new Corporation, when it deals with problems in the future, will remember this most salutary lesson that one cannot marry the results obtained from 400 or 500 acres to a scheme designed for 4,000 or 5,000 acres. That is one of the lessons of the Corporation which I am sure will be studied with the greatest care.
The facts and figures on which the Corporation had to work, I regret to say, were wrong on every important issue. The experts, the men whose job it is to know what conditions are, had said that, so far as they could see, in the foresee-

able future there would not be a steady supply of groundnuts. We know that today margarine, soap and cooking fats are off the ration. In seven years the situation in this country has righted itself, although I do not think it has righted itself in many countries, which are still desperately short of these things. The scheme was predicated on the basis of groundnuts not falling below £20 a ton. At one time I was taken to task for believing that they would not fall below £40 a ton. Today I believe they are in the region of £70 a ton. The advice on the soil was wrong. Whether it was the soil or the machinery, expert advice given to the Corporation proved in fact not to be good. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that the experts should remember that in Africa it takes far longer and costs a great deal more to do a job than anyone can possibly imagine.
How could these mistakes have been avoided; how can they be avoided in future? No one can believe that this is to be anything more than a check on agricultural development. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that agriculture is of prime importance to Tanganyika. The way in which these mistakes can be avoided is to start some surveys. What is wanted is a geophysical survey of the remaining portions of Tanganyika. It is useless to fly over the country taking photographs, as photographs of forests do not show the soil configuration, although they are useful in many other ways. I remember receiving reports that in the Southern Province close to Uramba there were vast areas which could be divided into farms of 30,000 acres. Aerial surveys proved this to be so, but what was discovered when a foot survey was made? It was found that the country was criss-crossed by ravines and gulches. If Tanganyika is to contribute to the improved standard of living of its people, which the right hon. Gentleman wants, and at the same time to have a surplus for other countries, there has to be a geophysical survey. It will be very costly and will take quite a time, but it is necessary.
The second necessity is a geochemical survey. There are minerals in Tanganyika about which people know nothing at the moment because no one has studied them—or not studied them with


sufficient application. There is wealth in Tanganyika if it is known where to look for it and if it is known how to recognise it and how to get it out. Another essential is improved technical education for the Africans. What is also required is an anthropological survey to see what the Africans can do tribe by tribe, district by district and province by province in Tanganyika, because men are different. It is no use bringing in thousands of Africans, recruited from all parts of Africa, and giving them the same task. They are not all suited to the same task. There is no satisfactory anthropological survey on which future development can be based.
I think further that, on the question of the expense of this and other schemes, Britain cannot "go it alone." I do not believe that any Western European nation can "go it alone" on the question of colonial development. The cost is too heavy in raw materials and resources, and the interference in the standard of living of the people of the Western European countries is too high for them to be prepared to swallow it.
It is, therefore, necessary to have an amalgamation of British powers of organisation and improvisation, of American "git up and go," Dutch tropical agriculture, French research workers, and Germans. I should like to see the whole of the Colonies belonging to every nation in the world being developed by an international authority, not to govern them but to provide them with the necessary men, money and materials to proceed with development whether it be in Portuguese, French, Belgian or British territory.
I should like to see another nine-Power conference designed not to put weapons of destruction into the hands of people but to explore the possibility of getting from the soil that wealth which is undoubtedly there. A little while ago the ex-Colonial Secretary put into the Library of the House of Commons some photographs of cattle maimed by the Mau Mau. I wish the present Colonial Secretary would put into the Library of the House the photographs contained in the Colonial Office publication dealing with malnutrition in African mothers, infants and young children, the result of an inter-African conference on nutrition in the

Gambia. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would arrange for the enlargement of those photographs of the effect of malnutrition on African women, infants and children and display them so that every time we went into the Library we would understand that we have a continuing responsibility for seeing that malnutrition is for ever banished from our Colonies.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: The case for this very useful little Bill was outlined by my right hon. Friend in such a way that one would have thought that very little discussion was required; but the extraordinary speech to which we have just listened impels me to rise to my feet.
For example, I do not think I have ever listened to a speech in this House in which so much wisdom lately learned has been crammed into so short a time. The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said in the course of his speech that the Overseas Food Corporation came in for a great deal of criticism which he described as ill-informed. He thereupon gave us in great detail the reasons why that criticism was so well directed. He said at the end of his remarks that Tanganyika was a country which needed—he is right here, of course—a geophysical survey. There is great mineral wealth there, but there is little use talking about wealth of any kind unless it is made accessible.
The hon. Member described one of the difficulties encountered in opening Tanganyika for the growing of groundnuts as being the lack of adequate communications. How much better it would have been if first things had been put first and if some attention had been paid to the prior provision of those conditions which might eventually have ensured the success of the agricultural scheme. I well remember reading the debates of the Gold Coast Legislature in 1919–20, when the then Governor, Sir Frederick Guggisberg, a very remarkable man, a Canadian, an engineer and soldier, launched a ten-year development programme for that territory, saying that the key to the whole business could be summed up in one word—transportation. It is no accident that today the Gold Coast is one of the most prosperous and advanced countries in Africa because, so


long ago, those who had charge of its destinies put first things first.
The only point which emerges from the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford tonight is that the wrong instrument for the job was chosen at the outset, and that the wrong men were put in charge of it. Indeed, the House was misled from start to finish. I say that quite deliberately because our complaint is not that the conception in the first place was wrong; we can all make mistakes and, at the time there was a case for embarking upon an ambitious scheme of that kind. But when things did go wrong the House was not informed. It was only when the facts could no longer be concealed that those responsible began to admit that something had gone wrong.
I welcome this Bill because, at long last, we are getting on to the right track. It is impossible to develop the resources of overseas territories many thousands of miles away by great centralised public corporations run from London. It is quite clear to anybody who has examined the question that there are many hazards in the development of tropical agriculture. The hon. Member for Deptford mentioned some of them. He said that there were no rainfall statistics available in Tanganyika. I should have thought that that alone would have led those in charge of the scheme to have tried out, before embarking upon this expenditure of public money, before building up a vast organisation to grow groundnuts in a country where groundnuts have never been known before, a whole series of pilot schemes. It is quite extraordinary—

Sir L. Plummer: Is the hon. Member being serious when he says that groundnuts were never grown in Tanganyika? Surely he knows that almost every African grows groundnuts on his shamba.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): We cannot now embark on a discussion of the scheme. I understand the hon. Member's argument to be that there were pitfalls in the old schemes which should not be repeated after this transference, but we cannot go back and discuss the groundnuts scheme.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. As I hope to catch your eye later. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I raise the point that we are discussing

the Second Reading of the Bill, that we are discussing not merely what is in the Bill but what is not in the Bill and what ought to be done in this direction in future; and what steps should be taken in future with reference to these matters.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill transfers certain powers from one corporation to another and references to conditions arising from the transfer are certainly in order. I make no complaint of the speech which the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) is making, which is in order. I understood him to be using the argument that pitfalls to the original scheme should be noted on the transfer, but that is different from discussing the groundnuts scheme.

Mr. Hale: The Bill raises the question whether we should wind up these operations and, on Second Reading, by implication, whether we should expand them, to what area we should expand them and what corporation they should be transferred to and, therefore, whether we consider that this is the right type of corporation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not suggesting that that is out of order.

Mr. Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for arguing my case for me. It is, in fact, quite clear that the course which was previously followed was a wrong-headed course, that it produced heartbreaks on a massive scale, and that the course upon which we are now embarking is the right one. Of that I do not think there can be any doubt.
The hon. Member for Deptford mentioned the malnutrition which unhappily is widespread in Africa. If its peoples are to be raised to a condition in which they can add not only to the wealth but the happiness of their country, can enjoy decent standards of living, then Africa must experience an agricultural revolution. Democracy came to this country largely through an industrial revolution. It can only come to Africa through an agricultural revolution, through a complete transformation of its people's way of life and through the better cultivation of its land for the benefit of those who still depend for their existence upon the soil.
One of the most encouraging things observed by the recent Parliamentary


delegation which went to East and Central Africa was the way in which agricultural departments in almost every territory, departments filled with enthusiastic officers, are now beginning, at long last, to wean Africans away from the crude agricultural methods which have obtained almost since the beginning of time, and to persuade them to adopt new scientific techniques which will enable them to improve their standards of living.
I was told of the tenant farming experiment which has been proceeding during the last two years at Nachingwea and which, although it is, perhaps, a little early in the day to say has produced outstanding results, appears, nevertheless, to be on the right lines. For in Tanganyika there is the great problem of people living on the hills which are becoming steadily eroded. Here, in this scheme, we have the means of bringing people down into the plains where a decent living can be won from the soil, by a combination of European agricultural techniques and African labour. It is precisely because this Bill makes that sort of thing possible on an ever-growing scale that I wholeheartedly welcome it tonight.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: May I, first of all, apologise to the Minister for my absence when he made his speech? The unwarranted taciturnity of the Scots is one of the unpredictable elements on which one cannot make a real decision. I made a pilot survey earlier, and the survey was overwhelmingly in support of the theory that we should still be discussing the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill at 7.15 p.m.
As I say, I am sorry that I missed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I welcome him to his new office, though this is not a night when we can speak with confidence of the future in view of some of things that have been said. However, I find nothing objectionable in his slaphappiness. Indeed, I rather like it. However, we shall watch with some anxiety—though, on the whole, without much hope—his future performance in his new office.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) deserves to have a few words addressed to him. Some people find the most objectionable feature of the natives of England, and some the most attractive

feature, what their opponents call their nauseating hypocrisy and what approvers of us call our blandness. But people do observe that we are apt to concern ourselves wholly with the morals of the poorer peoples of the world and to take very little interest in their physical condition. The poorer peoples of the world are apt to be interested in their physical condition and to concentrate on the belly if it happens to be empty. I find myself going through the same emotions if I am deprived of food for any considerable length of time.
The hon. Member for Billericay said that the time had come for a great agricultural revolution in Africa. When has that time never been ripe? He said that Africa now has agricultural colleges offering improved agricultural techniques to the Africans. Are these facilities open to the people on the locations, to the Kikuyu and to the Masai? I pay great tribute to the work of the few people in Africa doing this work. I know that they have very great ability, but they have limited opportunities and very little money to budget with. To say that we can bring about an agricultural revolution while there are people living on a location with about one acre of land per family is really to talk nonsense.
The hon. Member for Billericay first complained about the wisdom of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). Personally, I am very glad that my hon. Friend made his speech. He said many things which have wanted saying for a long time, and he said them very well. What is more, he concluded on the note on which I hoped that he would conclude. I say unrepentantly that this money was well spent, and I am sorry that we have allowed ourselves to be put on the defensive about it. A section of the party with which my name is constantly associated should have got so used to criticism by now that its members should not be put on the defensive by mass newspaper criticism. They should have become immune to it.
What, in fact, has happened? On the whole, Tanganyika is about the happiest Colony that we have in Africa, by comparison, at any rate, with comparable territories. That is point No. 1. I disagree with one observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne


Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), that we should send to Africa native experts from this country. We have not got such experts. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford was right. We have people who know a great deal about agriculture and about agricultural implements and how to use them, and about the crops we grow in this country But there are no experts in the world capable of giving advice on the crops to be grown in African territories.
If the hon. Member for Billericay will refer to the last Report of the Overseas Development Corporation he will find a whole catalogue of quite unpredictable incidents and of quite new problems which they had to face. For instance, there was the coming of the weaver bird to the sorghum fields and the complete elimination of the whole crop. That was something about which no expert had warned or about which he knew. and no one had foreseen it. Then it was found that for the moment, at any rate, one variety, the "Dobbs," escapes these attacks.
My hon. Friend referred to the rosette disease, which attacks one area here and misses it there. We were originally told that the Mboga soil was the most unsuitable of all the soils and then later, we are told that for some crops it may prove to be the best. Then the hon. Gentleman opposite got up and asked why we did not have a pilot scheme for measuring rainfall. How long would such a pilot scheme have to continue to get adequate views—15, 30, 50 years? Is he really to preface his great agricultural revolution in Africa by sending half a dozen rainfall measurers with half a dozen jampots to measure rainfall for 30 years before taking another step? Is that a policy which the Conservative Government would urge?

Mr. Braine: The hon. Member must remember that the production of groundnuts was one of the objects of the previous scheme proudly announced to this House, but at the time groundnuts were rotting on the ground in thousands of tons in West Africa for lack of transport to move them.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. I observed that the hon. Member is now addressing the House in a proper spirit of penitence.
Of course we should have had transport and communications, but it is a matter of fantastic expense. This House must be prepared to realise that background expenditure in Africa must be regarded as expenditure that can bring back no revenue either now or in the future. We have to be prepared either to spend money ourselves, or to allow other countries to participate and to spend money, or to let the United Nations Specialised Agencies spend money on wholly background development in the way of roads, rail and the opening up of vast territories. Nothing else can hope to succeed. It has never been done.
We have been in some parts of Africa for some centuries now and in most parts of it for 100 years or so. It has never been done. It has hardly been touched. With respect, it is nonsense to come to this House tonight and talk about the comparatively small sum that has been lost or written off in this great adventure from which so much knowledge has been acquired and so much information of great value to the future has been drawn. It is not right so to address a House which sits night after night and allows a Minister to come here and say, "I want a couple more aircraft carriers because I am told that the Russians have a lot more submarines," and passes that on the nod without argument.
We have gained one advantage from this adventure in Africa. From this one adventure we have attracted the interest of the world. It has stimulated the enthusiasm of the peoples of the whole continent. It raised admiration in all those Colonies where we have coloured people. It had, at least in its inception, a psychological value of great importance. It is one experiment, and we have not lost as much by it as we have lost time after time by the folly of one accident at sea. We have not lost as much as, in the past, we have from one lucky shot bursting in the boilers of a great battleship. I do not repine.
I have allowed myself, in a moment of irritation at the speech just made, to diverge from the very narrow path I had allowed for myself. I intended to restrict myself to one or two quite humble observations. I was glad that the hon. Member referred to the report of the Parliamentary Delegation which went to Kenya 12 months ago and which produced some observations of great value.
It did a great job of work. I made the same observations in detail 12 months previously in a speech which was much criticised at the time.

Mr. Braine: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I was referring to the Parliamentary Delegation which has just visited Tanganyika.

Mr. Hale: Yes, but I was referring to that which went primarily to Kenya, and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was a distinguished member.

Mr. Braine: I agree that it was an admirable delegation, but it was one which did not go to Tanganyika.

Mr. Hale: I was referring to Kenya, and Kenya is not Tanganyika.

Mr. J. Johnson: If I may interrupt, some members of the delegation did go to Tanganyika and gained valuable information.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps we can now come to the Bill.

Mr. Hale: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall not yield any more to the constant temptation offered.
Some of the observations made by the delegation were of great value. I take no credit for having made the same observations 12 months ago, but I then came under great criticism for making them. It is of importance that there has now been some advance in understanding because, while I was criticised for going there for only a fortnight and then making any observations at all, the Parliamentary Delegation has been congratulated on its celerity in arriving at conclusions after a similarly short stay.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us one or two things about his policy generally. I am sure that we are all glad that he has been on the spot—which is where he should be. [Laughter.] We will reserve the precise implications of that for further occasions. I am glad that he has been in Africa and has been surveying the problems there.
I do not dissent from the steps proposed in this Bill, but it leaves us with the Colonial Development Corporation and with a mass of curious schemes, some development, some social schemes, hotels

here or loans there, pilot schemes here or cattle ranches in Bechuanaland and so on—a fantastic collection of schemes on which the Corporation reported to the House in the language and tone of an office boy in a hurry to get to a football match.
There is hardly one scheme mentioned in their Report which does not look as if, first of all, it was written to be telegraphed before the rates went up and the writer did not want to go into detail, and has since been cut down because the rates have gone up and no one wants to waste undue time talking about it. There are little items like £750,000 written off for a slaughterhouse in Bechuanaland because it was thought that the architect did not know very much about slaughterhouses.
I do not wish to criticise these various bodies. I think that the Colonial Development Corporation was a great idea, and that it can produce results if it has the right personnel, the right attitude and the right Government behind it. But what is to happen in the meantime? We are faced with the possibility of another eight or nine months of Tory government, and one must make some provision for that fact.
One matter of great comment is the fact that very little use is made in our Colonial Territories of the services of the United Nations Specialised Agencies. Time after time when we ask questions we are told, "We have our own experts." Time after time, when we refer to the United Nations, we find that £50 or £60 has been spent on a whole territory, indicating the short visit of a single representative. No organisation in the world has more resources for collecting knowledge. But world knowledge needs local reinforcement.
In this sphere local knowledge is of the utmost value. In the campaign against trypanosomiasis, for example, the location of the parasite is different in East Africa from what it is in West Africa. Each needs its own expert and specialised knowledge. But there is no doubt that in the great organisation of the war against want and disease the United Nations Specialised Agencies have achieved great results and yet are still being crippled for lack of funds.
The object of the Overseas Food Corporation when it took over the scheme was to do something more than produce food. It was to provide an integrated service in which the social, educational and cultural needs of the population would also have some provision made for them. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford paid tribute to the substantial work that was done in connection with hospitals and medical treament. That is one of the problems that every Government has had to face, and one of the problems that provides a very special difficulty.
On paper it seems, perhaps, much better that one should have a trading population and a social services scheme as quite different organisations differently controlled, but when one studies the economic structure of the Colonies one comes to the conclusion that they have got to be integrated in some such way as was done in the Tennessee Valley scheme of President Roosevelt in 1935. We have always regarded as vital a large-scale development scheme of the type into which at one time it was hoped the experiment in Tanganyika might develop. If it is to be done, these things have to be considered.
At this moment, I suppose, there is no worse stain resting upon this House than our relations with the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. We are paying to that Fund less than Thailand—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I fail to see any connection between that fact and this Bill.

Mr. Hale: I am extremely sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was merely pointing out that the cause of malnutrition is lack of food, and the cause of lack of food is lack of food production. I am pointing out that the malnutrition of children—which is the object of this Fund—applies to Africa and can be used in Tanganyika to remedy the lack of food.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not come within the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Hale: No. That is the point that that I was trying to make, and I thought I was well in order, in a Second Reading debate, in indicating the kind of Amendments which ought to be made in Com-

mittee to make the Bill more useful. I was saying that we are at the moment paying much less to this Fund than is Thailand. We are about fifteenth in the list of contributory nations.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that when we approach him in this matter we shall do so in a purely non-party spirit, and without recriminations Both sides of the House have been to blame and have been responsible for appalling niggardliness. We shall not approach the Minister in a party spirit, but we shall say, "Here is something which can make a substantial contribution, and upon which a good deal more money can be well spent."
The work of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation comes well within the scope of this discussion. Here I come back to the alteration in the groundnuts scheme. One of the unforeseeable events was that the extensive use of insecticides such as D.D.T. made it almost impossible to pollinate the flowers. The insects which usually pollinated them had been practically destroyed by D.D.T., which meant that yet another agricultural problem had to be faced. There are food and agriculture experts in the United Nations who are specially engaged in research into hybridisation and pollinisation, and in the production of types of food, particularly rice, adapted to the special needs of special tropical areas.
Japonica rice has a very high rate of productivity in the Far East, and Indica rice a very low rate. Experts are now considering the whole problem of hybridisation of rice, with a view to enabling strains to be produced which have a very high rate of productivity. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman will apply his mind to these matters he will be tremendously impressed with the experiments which have been carried out in India and which have shown that the quantity of rice produced annually in India can be raised by 60 per cent. in a very short time with the production of a new type of seed and new methods.
In those circumstances, the Minister should seek to co-operate much more with the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and should give much greater encouragement to the Colonies to do so. There is a tendency, in some of the African Colonial Territories, to adopt an insular attitude towards world organisa-


tions. I hope that that attitude will disappear and that the right hon. Gentleman will adumbrate a policy which will mean a fuller co-operation with these organisations, fuller support for the Children's Fund of the United Nations, and fuller expenditure upon development projects, even power projects.
I hope that he will not adopt the attitude of some of his more infantile supporters, who say, "We have lost money once; we must never lose it again. This did not turn out so well as we expected, so we should not make any more experiments." The hon. Member for Billericay was quite right in saying that there must be an agricultural revolution, but such a revolution cannot be achieved by writing pamphlets, making speeches, or exhortations. It can only be done by money, organisation, determination, and the co-operation of the African. Unless we do this we shall pay a very heavy penalty.
If an experiment of this kind had been started in Kenya, 10,000 men who are now dead would be alive today, even if the experiment had failed. Had there been in Kenya an indication that we had the natives' welfare at heart and were determined to proceed with their welfare at a reasonable rate, the trouble there would have been avoided. Many people who have come to understand the problems of Kenya are beginning to agree with what I was saying two years ago. We must have more round-table conferences. We must get people together to talk about economic reforms. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I predicted the length of this catastrophe—

Mr. Frederic Harris: I was not shaking my head, but I was wondering if we were to have a discussion of the Mau Mau troubles in Kenya, which have nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Hale: I thought I had related them to the Bill. However, the hon. Member is not in the Chair, and even if he were I think I could argue the matter with him. Certainly, I failed to gather from his expression that I was having his enthusiastic support. I will not put it higher than that.
These are great problems. A great many things need to be done, and if the right hon. Gentleman is determined to do

those things he will get a great deal of encouragement from this side of the House.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: It is not always an easy thing to get the ear of the house, but my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) always gets it. Indeed, he gets both ears usually, but, even so, I have never listened to any Member so intently as I have listened tonight to my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I would commend to hon. Members opposite the old tag de mortuis nil nisi bonum. But he spoke of the past and gave us facts that many of us did not know or could only guess at.
However, I do not want to talk about the past but of the future; yet looking back for a moment over the last few years, one sees that it is a shabby tale indeed as told by many of our newspapers and by many hon. Members opposite when they discussed the O.F.C. in its difficult days in 1949 and 1950. In colonial debates what usually gets into the headlines are projects like the Jinja Dam, but there are many other jobs, less spectacular, that need doing in Africa, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West has said, for lifting the productivity of those territories.
Increasing the productivity of African farming is the most important thing to be done, and it cannot be done by remote control from London. I am in favour of local development corporations on the spot. I am in favour of enlisting for the task more and more of the people who live in the territory, more and more of those who really know the soils and the climates. I am in favour of enlisting the co-operation of the indigenous people, in this case the Africans of Tanganyika.
I have had the pleasure this year of flying over most of these territories, Tanganyika, Kenya, Uganda and Nyasaland. When one looks down at them one sees that all that territory, from the Rhodesias to Abyssinia, consists of the same sort of bush country. If we are to succeed in our schemes we must learn from the lessons of what has happened and is happening, and then we shall be able to give to the Africans and to the


other peoples of those savannahs the technique and the "know-how," so that they in the future can produce the food and fill their bellies, which have not been filled in the past.
This Bill has been warmly welcomed by the Legislative Council of Tanganyika, and it has been welcomed by the Africans, and in particular by Chief Adam Sapi in the Assembly. I echo, here and now, their reception of it. I am glad that, despite the sneers of many hon. Members opposite in the past, we are going on with these schemes. Despite the lukewarmists, we are to go on with our schemes for a deep-water port at Mtwara and for railways running into the hinterland—I shall say more about them in a moment—and also with the provision of the ancillary services described by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, the hospitals, water services, the schools, the aerodromes, even the townships in the bush where no settlement was made 10 or 20 years ago.
I want to commend the courageous Governor of Tanganyika, Sir Edward Twining, who, in the face of much opposition from gloom-mongers out there and here has carried on with this audacious scheme, out of a sense of obligation to the Southern Province of Tanganyika which, ever since the Magi Magi Rebellion of 1904 under the Germans has been neglected. It has been the Cinderella of East Africa.
We here talk about our devastating losses in men and material of the Great Wars of 1914 to 1918 and of 1939 to 1945, but in the Magi Magi the men and some of the women of the south of Tanganyika were literally exterminated. Ever since, that people has felt humiliated in the sight of neighbouring African peoples. It has lacked life and vigour, which a scheme like this will restore to it. Such a scheme as this will give people back their dignity, give them new hope, and enable them to feel that they belong to the family of nations.
We welcome the Bill on both sides of the House. The ultimate objective is by means of agricultural techniques and scientific experiments so to develop African farming that it will point the way to a higher standard of living. If we do this we shall have accomplished a wonderful task, but we must all bear in

mind that control of these schemes must finally pass to the peoples themselves. Whatever investment we plough in there, whether it is in the railways or in the development of coal mines in the hinterland or in the smelting of iron, or, in this case, in tenant farming, it is important that we should bear in mind that we are going in as white men for the sake of the African people and that we shall hand over to them a going concern in the future.
I welcome this new set-up. Indeed, I welcome anything in the way of what I term functional democracy, of local people doing local work in their Colonies. The snag in the past, of the C.D.C. and perhaps of the O.F.C., is that we have not had sufficient knowledge locally or sufficient people who knew the local conditions. In passing, I would say this about the C.D.C. Since 1949, since the death of Sir Frank Stockdale, there has been no member of the Board who has had any personal experience of tropical agriculture, which is an alarming thing when we think of the fact that farming, and the development of African farming in particular, is the most important job to be done by these concerns.
I stress again the importance of it being under a local corporation and the importance of local public accountability. When I look back at the Cameroons Development Corporation or even the Gezira scheme of the Sudan, I notice that, beyond the original debates in this House, there were few questions or debates in the Assemblies out there, or even in this House. We talk about public accountability for the nationalised boards at home. It is very important that there should be public accountability for the public corporations in the Colonies. We shall ask questions and we hope that there will be debates in Dar-es-Salaam, and I hope that we shall keep this Corporation on its toes in the future.
Lastly, where do we go from here? Earlier the Minister spoke about the railway in the South to Nachingwea. He talked of this railway having wider implications in the future. How much wider? Is it the Government's intention to spend what Sir Alexander Gibb and his partners said it would cost—£10,000 a mile—and take it 400 miles beyond Nachingwea to Limesule Ju and Songea, because there we have many scores of


millions of tons of good coal and also sub-bituminous coal, and we have iron ore at Liganga? If we can develop those resources in the near future or even in the appreciable future, it would be an enormous boon. There is no bunker coal between Natal and Nigeria and we could enormously develop our supplies for the Indian Ocean ports and for industries in East Africa, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland and elsewhere. I ask what are the intentions, if any, of opening up the rail-way line to the interior.
We know that it has been said that it would be expensive, but I draw attention to the American example, where they use a narrow gauge for metals and minerals of this nature, where the intention is to build many miles of line. They avoid the steeper gradients, they do not mind taking detours and they have a much cheaper and more effective technique for getting into the back blocks for metals of this kind.
My final point deals with finance. I see from Clause 5 that the Government are to be kind enough to waive the interest upon certain of these loans. Earlier the Minister said that he had made an offer to C.D.C. of £4 million—of wiping off capital investment of £4 million. He said that there had been between £8 million and £8½ million of investment in the past in schemes and projects which have now lapsed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The £8 million represented not only the schemes which had been abandoned but also schemes which, in the view of the C.D.C., were over-capitalised.

Mr. Johnson: Why fix a figure of £4 million? Why not go the whole hog and liquidate the lot? It is a bookkeeping account; it is all in the family. The Government have to finance both operations. If we want to give these concerns the feeling that they have a chance to pull their weight, I think we should take this millstone from about their necks and give them a chance to start with a clean sheet. I hope that the Minister of State will say something on that matter when he replies.
Finally, I would say that whether we open up coalfields in the South or go ahead with schemes of agricultural development or build factories, all these

schemes must be patently for the benefit of the indigenous peoples themselves. We are their guardians. They are our wards, and it is our job to go in and make up for our many misdeeds of the past. I have no masochistic complex. I am not looking back to the days of slavery, but we have something to make up to these peoples, and we must make it crystal clear to them that we intend to help the peoples themselves. There is an enormous amount of suspicion there. In their view, the white man is still an alien and exotic figure on this black African landscape, and we have to gain their confidence if we are to stay there. Therefore, I hope that in this "hiving off" in Tanganyika there will be a fruitful partnership, and that the Africans themselves will ere long be in charge of their own affairs in this Corporation.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: If I rise for a few minutes it is not to criticise the speech of the Colonial Secretary because, whatever he used to say about the scheme in its old form and about ourselves, he did show in his speech tonight that he is keen and enthusiastic about the scheme in its new form, and that he wishes to develop the Colony by means of this scheme. That is the thing which all of us on this side of the House care about.
Two remarks have been made from other speakers, however, on the other side of the House which I cannot allow to go by without comment. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) alleged that the original scheme was accepted out of hand by the then Government. I think, knowing the procedure that we went through when the original Overseas Food Corporation scheme was accepted, that that description of it is too grotesque to leave as it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has described some of the procedures which were gone through, but, as he said, he had nothing to do with them at that time. He came in at a later stage, and I think that someone who was a member of the Government of the day, and who was directly concerned, ought briefly to recall to the House exactly what happened.
Originally, of course, Mr. Samuel proposed the scheme to the then Colonial


Secretary, and Lord Hall, far from immediately accepting it, appointed the Wakefield Committee, consisting of Mr. Wakefield, an ex-Director of Agriculture in Tanganyika—and not an unsuitable man to be appointed—Mr. Martin, the relevant man in the Unilever organisation, and Mr. Rosa, to examine the scheme. I did not appoint them. They were appointed by the Colonial Secretary of the day. They reported to us; but was their report accepted out of hand? Certainly not. Not only was a special section of the Ministry of Food and of the Colonial Office, to which my hon. Friend referred, appointed and the scheme most carefully vetted by them, but also the Colonial Advisory Council, which has not been mentioned, had the scheme before it and reported in its favour.
All these experts—and I am not proposing to attack them today—believed with the utmost sincerity the recommendations which they gave to the Government. Our responsibility, and my personal responsibility as a Minister most closely associated with all this—of course, it is a heavy responsibility—was that we believed that all these reports from all those experts were correct. In fact, they proved to have been totally incorrect.
Certainly, looking back on it, I think that if some way could have been found of vetting those reports with even greater care than that long procedure of investigation which I have briefly detailed to the House, that would have been an additional advantage. But to suggest that the Government of the day lightheartedly entered into the scheme without taking what appeared to be, at any rate, the very best expert advice at the time, is quite a travesty of the facts.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) said, very truly, that transport was the key to all these schemes of colonial development. He implied that the great folly of the groundnuts scheme was that it did not develop transport. He overlooks the fact that an indispensable, vital and major part of the original groundnuts scheme was precisely the building of a railway and the construction of a port. Whatever has happened to the rest of the scheme, that railway and port have now been built and, as the Colonial Secretary described to us,

will play what he believes to be a most important part in the future of the Colony.
Therefore, whatever criticism we have of the scheme as put forward in the Wakefield Report—and, goodness knows, we can all make dreadful criticisms of that scheme in the light of experience—the idea that it neglected transport is quite untrue, because one of its major recommendations was the building of that large railway and large port, which has actually been done.
I am certainly the last person in the House to under-estimate the magnitude of the tragedy of the groundnuts scheme. Of course it is a tragedy. We say that good may still come out of it, yet there is no doubt that in its original form, and judged by its original expectations, it has proved a tragedy; I could not for one moment try to say anything else to the House. But I say this to the Colonial Secretary at the beginning of his period of office. We implore him and we demand of him that he does not let the tragedy and failure of that scheme stop him and his Government from pushing on with the policy of colonial development, and colonial agricultural development above all.
We have been reminded constantly all these years of all the money which has been spent; it is always said that the money spent upon the groundnuts scheme has been lost. If the right hon. Gentleman pushes on with colonial development, as he showed a mind to do tonight, he will find that not all his schemes will succeed either. He, too, will find difficulties, but do not let him be discouraged by that.
When we look at the finance, when we look at the millions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has just emphasised, do not think that the account between us and the Colonies is all one way. Do not let us think that our expenditure on the Colonies, of which the groundnuts scheme was one part, is simply philanthropy on our part. After all, the Colonies have been very valuable to us. One has only to look at the national accounts in the post-war years and see the dollar earnings of the Colonies. They have been the one part of the Commonwealth that has always had an active dollar surplus.
Therefore, I say to the Secretary of State, in the opening period of his office, that he should not be discouraged by the tragedy of the groundnuts scheme, the bitter political feelings which it generated and the heartbreak of it—and, goodness knows, I felt that. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman be discouraged by that or by the difficulties and disappointments which he will find also, unless he is very fortunate indeed in this field. The necessity for colonial agricultural development remains a paramount necessity for our Commonwealth if it is to survive. If we can draw one lesson from this scheme it is that we must, somehow or other, overcome these difficulties. If we do that we shall feel that in the end all these efforts have succeeded.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I always endeavour to show Parliamentary courtesy, but the Colonial Secretary puts me in some difficulty. At any rate, I can say this, that everyone hopes he will be an improvement on his predecessor and some of us are relieved that he is no longer at the Ministry of Transport.
However, it was not the contribution of the Colonial Secretary which has provoked me to intervene in this debate, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). If this debate has served one good purpose, it is that it has revealed that my hon. Friend was subject to the most vicious and malicious attacks. He has made quite clear tonight that, whatever criticism there may have been of the groundnuts scheme, its shape and size was determined by the Managing Agency before my hon. Friend undertook his appointment.
From my own personal experience I know he brought to the scheme a realistic appraisal and leadership. He did everything he could to readjust the scheme to the conditions which developed. No one desires to deny what has always been obvious, that the original idea was ill-founded, and everyone will agree with my hon. Friend when he says that pilot schemes would not have made any difference unless we were prepared to wait generations before we developed Tanganyika.
The ill-informed, malicious criticisms that were made of that scheme have made

it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to carry on the groundnuts scheme. The disastrous effect upon the men working in Tanganyika was great, and there is the most unfortunate effect upon the Government of the day as well as the Government of yesterday, because it is now very difficult indeed to face up to the essential problem of large-scale development in our Colonial Territories.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) made a good point when he said that we shall have to turn to international aid. One of the reasons is that we must have protection against this ill-informed, ill-inspired criticism to which colonial development is subject in this country. If it is a question of pounds, shillings and pence, I merely say that over the last 12 months the Ministry of Food, through its commercial ineptitude in stocking up on a falling market, has lost far more money than was lost in the groundnuts scheme.
Many reports have been quoted during this debate and I want to quote one more. It is:
Another not unimportant factor supporting the winding-up of the Corporation is that I am afraid that the Corporation will never be able to rid itself of the mark of its initial objective. It was conceived by Mr. Samuel, Managing Director of the Unilever subsidiary, the United Africa Company. The Groundnuts Scheme was a commercial scheme imposed on Tanganyika to increase the production of fats for the United Kingdom and it has never lost its original character. However rhetorically the scheme may be spoken of, it remains today a scheme organised by the British for the British but which happens to operate in East Africa. Only by its transformation will the scheme have the chance of gaining public support and good will in Tanganyika and be recognised as an indigenous development bringing benefit not only to ourselves but also to the peoples of East Africa.
That was the conclusion of the report that I made after my visit to the groundnuts scheme in 1950, and I am glad it is being implemented by the Government.
I have two more things to say about it. I hope that now this scheme will become indigenous and economical and have the co-operation of all the peoples in Tanganyika. I hope also, however, that by making it such we shall not try to abnegate our responsibility; that we shall still recognise our enormous responsibility to these Colonial Territories and will not be afraid to put into them the capital resources which are absolutely necessary if those countries are not only


to improve their own standard of living but contribute to the increased standard of living of people in Britain also.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: This debate has been of considerable use if only for one reason, that it has enabled many of us on this side of the House to clear up the misunderstandings which have been spread, sometimes deliberately, from the other side about the groundnuts scheme. It was of value if only for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), a speech which revealed much that had previously been unrevealed and which did a great deal to answer the criticisms made on the other side of the House.
First, I shall refer to one or two small points and ask certain questions. All of us welcome Clause 5 by which the payments of interest are to be remitted by the C.D.C. on certain schemes. It is a pity that the C.D.C. did not agree to all payments being remitted, but at any rate it gives the Corporation a better chance. I hope that this will be followed at a later stage by something which will make its task easier. In the past the Corporation has had to show a profit, and yet it has only been able to undertake schemes not likely to be undertaken by private enterprise. That is a difficulty under which no organisation can expect to progress, and so I hope that an alteration will be made there.
Now I come to my two questions. First, can we have a little more information about the composition and powers of the new Board? Secondly, what is proposed to be done to help the C.D.W. in this connection? I understand that the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds are to pay out certain sums to reimburse the overseas food scheme. Yet, if there is any surplus at the end, apparently that goes back into the Exchequer and not to the C.D.W. It looks, therefore, as if the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds are to be reduced by an amount which was not previously anticipated.
On this side of the House we are sorry that the groundnuts scheme did not succeed as we had hoped. We are not certain that every hon. Member opposite is equally sorry; some seem to show an unpleasant pleasure that it did not suc-

ceed, saying that it pointed to the fact that public enterprise cannot succeed whereas private enterprise would have succeeded. That line of argument has been answered successfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford. It is unfortunate that hon. Members opposite should have taken that line because of the great harm it did to the people on the spot who were carrying out the work.
I saw the scheme under extraordinary circumstances, going there at a time when I knew that it was to be closed down, whereas the people on the spot did not yet know it. I was taken round by a man who was full of enthusiasm. He was looking after an area of 10,000 acres or more and he showed me his plans for the next year, saying that next year he would plant this and develop that. I knew but I could not tell him at that moment that none of these plans would come to fruition. It gave one a terrible sense of tragedy to know that nothing would happen and that there would be this failure and yet to see him so full of enthusiasm because he did not know what was in store for him.
I hope that we shall have regard for the feelings of these people, particularly those now continuing the scheme in its reduced form, and that we shall do nothing to prevent their carrying it out with enthusiasm. Much has been done as a result of the scheme. Land has been reclaimed and buildings put up and above all, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said, port facilities have been provided. If the scheme had not been started, the Southern Provinces might never have been opened up as they have been today. That, if nothing else, stands to its credit, but there is a great deal else.
The last thing that we owe to the scheme is the development of the skill of Africans. It is quite remarkable how much Africans learned by way of tractor driving, lorry driving and agricultural technique as a result of the scheme. I hope that we shall build on this and that, in particular, we shall be able to develop not only the agriculture but the minerals, of Tanganyika, especially the coal supplies which the C.D.C. is investigating not very far away from the place where the scheme is now being carried on.
It is possible that all these things can be done in Tanganyika because there,


mercifully, there is no Mau Mau. There race relationships are very much better than they are in Kenya. Because of that, we should be able to carry out developments which unfortunately are now impossible in Kenya. This scheme has certainly been a tragedy but out of that tragedy I hope that we shall be able to develop something which will be of benefit to Africans and will make up in a small degree for the neglect of their interests for so many years.

9.18 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said when he opened this debate that he did not intend to dwell upon the past and he stuck to that purpose. It appears to me that a large number of speeches from the Opposition have tended, on the contrary, to dwell very much on the past. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) in fact welcomed this occasion for clearing up a number of doubts about the running of the scheme.
I listened to the speeches with great attention. I listened to that of the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) with interest. I understand his desire to defend his Corporation and to explain his own conduct of it in the past. I listened with interest and respect to the speech of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). It was a manly and moving speech, if I may say so. I listened with less respect to that of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) at the beginning of our debate, because it seemed to me that in a sense he was trailing his coat, that it was a case of Qui s'excuse, s'accuse. He said that he wanted the last word on the groundnuts scheme, but that last word is contained in numbers of HANSARD covering the 1951 debates when the scheme was wound up.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. Gentleman will find from HANSARD tomorrow that I did not say that I wanted the last word.

Mr. Hopkinson: A final word, then.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not even use that expression. I said, and I think that I was entitled to say, that the Second Reading of this Bill was perhaps the last

opportunity for stating the facts as they really were, in view of the misrepresentations on the part of hon. and right hon. Members opposite for years past.

Mr. Hopkinson: I am glad that my hon. Friends have not allowed themselves to be drawn into barren controversy over the past, because we are not dealing with the past, but with the future; we are dealing with a new scheme The object of this scheme is to transfer the control of the experimental schemes in these three places, Kongwa, Urambo and Nachingwea to a Corporation representing the local government. That is the main object. I should like to emphasise that it does not mean that the 1951 experimental scheme introduced under the late Government has been a failure. It has not been a failure. All this scheme is doing is to continue that scheme.
Although to some extent the scheme has been reduced in size and altered in character, it has on the whole been successful and has certainly proved what cannot be done. I think hon. Members will appreciate this by reading the memorandum of the Overseas Food Corporation which forms the appendix to Command Paper 9158. The new scheme originated from the request of the Governor of Tanganyika in 1952 for an examination of the future of the Corporation's work so as to co-ordinate it more closely with Tanganyika's own agricultural development projects. That will be assured by the provisions of this Bill. It will make it possible for the Tanganyika Government to employ the present field organisation of the Overseas Food Corporation on its own development projects, and, by giving it a local status, will enable the Tanganyika Government to make direct use of its services.
It will also make it possible for the Tanganyika Government to perpetuate the present experiment of the Overseas Food Corporation, if it so desires, beyond 1957, when the present United Kingdom agricultural experiment is due to end. This scheme will come into effect on 1st April, 1955, which is the first convenient date after 1st October, this year, which was originally planned. From that date onwards the present experimental scheme will be brought under the wing of the tried and trusted system of Colonial Development and Welfare. Parliament is not actually being asked to provide for


this present seven-year experiment a single penny beyond the £6 million earmarked in 1951. As my right hon. Friend said, after deducting the actual and estimated expenditure up to the date of the transfer, the further money to be made available will amount to approximately £1,300,000, which will be added to the £140 million provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts.

Mr. Dugdale: I am not quite clear. Do I understand that Parliament is to be asked to add a further sum so that it may be available for this purpose? Otherwise, the C.D.W. Fund will be definitely short.

Mr. Hopkinson: The sum already exists and has already been voted by Parliament in the form of £6 million under the existing Acts. The balance, the part not already used up or which does not cover the railway guarantee of £1,250,000—the balance which amounts to about £1,300,000—will be added to the £140 million already provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts.
I was asked about the position of employees of the Overseas Food Corporation. The change-over merely gives them a new employer, a local employer. Their terms of service will be no less favourable than those in the past. They have all been given the option of staying on, and I believe that, with one exception, they have all decided to stay on.

Mr. Hale: There is a very substantial reduction in the number of European employees over the past 12 months—from 636 to 259.

Mr. Hopkinson: I was coming to the run-down of the Kongwa scheme in particular, of which I have particulars and on which I was questioned earlier. I was referring just now to the employees of the Overseas Food Corporation who will be transferred to the Tanganyika Corporation. Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for which he asked about the run-down of the Kongwa scheme, I can tell him the treatment accorded. All who have left have received the same compensation as those who left in 1951. The redundancy terms have never been changed, as it was felt that it would not be fair to those who left later not to give them the same terms as those who left during the mass exodus of 1950 and 1951. In every case every-

thing possible has been done to find them alternative employment. As far as we know everyone who has left the scheme has actually obtained alternative employment, only very few of them returning to England.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would that be the whole of the 1,667 or certainly the 1,283 employed in January, 1951, by the O.F.C.?

Mr. Hopkinson: My right hon. Friend tells me that the Governor informed him that 70 per cent. of the 1,283 have obtained employment locally—in Africa.
I was asked about the disposal of assets of the Overseas Food Corporation. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) who asked about that. The position is that the assets and the liabilities of the Overseas Food Corporation are transferred to the new Tanganyika Corporation, but the Bill provides, in Clause 3 (1), that any funds accruing from the disposal of the surplus of the property handed over by the O.F.C. will, as in the past, accrue to the British Exchequer. That cannot be said to be a very great deal. The remaining assets, of course, remain in the hands of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation.
Some questions were asked about Clause 5 of the Bill dealing with the waiver of interest on certain C.D.C. projects. My right hon. Friend said that this forms no part of the readjustment which is going on in Tanganyika and has merely been inserted in this Bill as a matter of convenience. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich, I think, asked me what the amount of interest which is to be waived in respect of abandoned schemes was likely to be. It is very difficult to compute, but we think it will be about £200,000 a year. We cannot at the moment give any estimate at all about other schemes which are not yet abandoned.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) asked me why it had not been decided to wipe the slate clean in the matter of C.D.C. projects and give the Corporation a fresh start. At least that is what I understood his question to be. I think that the answer to that is, partly, that there is no pressing need at this early stage of the Corporation's existence for a complete write-off. Many schemes


have years to run before it will be possible to say whether or not they are going to be a failure. There is the further point that if it were decided to give a completely free hand in this matter, it would be equivalent to nullifying the statutory requirement on the C.D.C. to break even, since it would always be possible—though I do not think it would
do it—to abandon a scheme the outcome of which was still open to doubt.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley asked me whether Her Majesty's Government thought that the Government of Tanganyika could bear the burden implicit in these proposals. He asked why it was not our intention to wipe out the whole of the remainder of the value of the railway. Certainly during the negotiations the Tanganyika Government accepted quite willingly the reduction of capitalisation of the railway to £2,500,000. In fact, I think it can be argued that Tanganyika will get a modern port and a railway worth really £6 million for a comparatively small sum, and they will certainly get many benefits in other ways.
It appears to me that the railway is almost the most important part of this Bill, and I should like to say a word or two about it. My right hon. Friend has explained the reasons why this has been done in this way. It entails the writing off of a sum of approximately £4,200,000 in loans advanced by the Overseas Food Corporation, together with interest thereon. The House must appreciate that this represents money which would have come back to the Exchequer and that now it will not. To that extent, I think it is a massive contribution to the development of Tanganyika. I hope that our friends in the United Nations and on the Trusteeship Council will recognise that once again we have made a contribution to our colonies.
It must also be appreciated that Her Majesty's Government, too, gain certain advantages. In the first place, the Overseas Food Corporation, and therefore the Government, are relieved of the obligation to make any further capital advances to finance the completion of the project. Secondly, they are released from a very

heavy and unlimited commitment in the shape of the guarantee given by the Corporation of the operating deficit on the port and railway, which guarantee was for an indefinite period. Based on the estimated cost after completion of the port and railway, which is now believed to be about £6 million, this guarantee over a long period would have cost more than the sum now being written off.
As far as the Tanganyikan Government are concerned, by reducing the capital investment to a reasonable amount, the operating costs for which they are responsible will certainly be much reduced. I think that the port and railway will provide them with the means of carrying out the development of the Southern Province in the way they deserve. I feel certain that every hon. Member in this House will agree that the railway and port represent a solid and far-reaching benefit to the Colony, and, to that extent, constitute a firm and solid monument to the ill-fated groundnut scheme.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: While I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, are we to understand that the Tanganyika Government will now have to find the interest and, possibly, the sinking fund on the £2,500,000 still left on the railway and harbour, in addition to the quite considerable losses which will occur for many years on the operating costs of both the harbour and the railway?

Mr. Hopkinson: That is the position. The Tanganyika Government have certainly not expressed any reluctance to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give some additional information in regard to the agricultural developments in the three places to which reference has been made this evening. I think that I cannot do better than to give a few points from a letter dated 29th September which has been received from the chairman of the Board on this subject. As far as Kongwa is concerned, he points out, as has been made quite clear, that the area does not lend itself to European arable agriculture. They are therefore turning to ranching as the main enterprise there. He does say, however, that they are hoping to start a small African tenant farming scheme in the area to prove


whether, with the help of mechanisation, Africans can obtain something better than a subsistence living from the soil in that area. They are having difficulty in getting families to start this work, but they hope to be able to induce 20 families to do so this year.
In Urambo the chairman says that it has been made quite clear that the fundamental difficulty is the tsetse fly. Had they been able to keep open the whole of the area, with the exception of the outer perimeter the tsetse fly could have been kept under control, but with the reduced area, which has added to the problems of sleeping sickness, he feels that they are under very great difficulties. In this Urambo area they have taken to flue-cured tobacco—about which the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) asked earlier. It has been shown that tobacco grows well in this area and they believe it best to concentrate on that crop and only to grow such other foodstuffs as are needed for local consumption.
The chairman, with the approval of the Secretary of State, is hoping to introduce a European tenant scheme in that area this year based on tobacco. Side by side with the European settlement, to which I think the right hon. Gentleman alluded, an African tenant scheme is going ahead. It is being increased this year from 20 tenants to 40 and ultimately, as my right hon. Friend said, to some 300 families.
As far as Nachingwea is concerned, the area is being devoted almost entirely to what was the original purpose of the present experiment—the economics of mechanised or partially-mechanised agriculture under tropical conditions. The chairman is of the opinion that at Nachingwea there is a vast field of work the results of which will contribute greatly to other parts of the Colonial Empire. In addition to this experimental work, they are trying to ascertain the possible economical development of the area both by European and by African farmers, although he points out that the lack of a satisfactory cash crop at the moment seems to rule out successful European settlement there.
Those, I think, were the main points on agricultural development about which I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman, but there are one or two subsidiary points. He asked why it was not possible to grow

cotton in the Kongwa area. I think that the answer must be the lack of suitable and reliable rainfall. There is no possibility of irrigation without rainfall, and without rain cotton certainly cannot grow. So far as Urambo is concerned, it has now been decided to concentrate almost entirely on flue-cured tobacco.
The hon. Member for Deptford, when he had finished describing the operation of the scheme and the reasons for its failure, asked whether we would consider setting up a geophysical survey and carrying out geochemical and anthropological surveys. All those things are being done all the time in relation to those areas. They are actually going on, and to some extent they are going on in the areas to which the Bill refers. There are soil chemists, and research is being con ducted on all these matters. I think that to attempt to carry out complete geophysical and geochemical surveys for the whole of Tanganyika would be out of the question, first of all from the point of view of expense, and secondly because they would cover a great deal of territory which, in fact, would not require that treatment
The hon. Gentleman also suggested as I understood, that a new international body should be set up in Africa, or perhaps he intended that it should deal with British Colonial Territories in general. He suggested that it should be a body consisting of the Powers with colonial possessions. I must emphasise that, in the first place, we cannot shed our responsibilities for our own Colonial Territories. It is not a question of being insular, as was suggested; we have these responsibilities, and I think the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that we should not shirk them. But let us by all means make every possible use—

Mr. Hale: We were not talking about shedding responsibility. We were talking about asking other people to shoulder responsibilities which we have constantly admitted were too great for us to bear in the limited time available. There is great scope for a geophysical survey in the Congo, for we have no great knowledge of the irrigational possibilities in that area. We do not know what possibilities there are of irrigational develop-


ment. I should have thought that this was a job on which a service like the world engineers' organisation could be used with great advantage. We have not had a complete geographical survey. If we had, it would then be possible to have a water survey. After all, this is the task that has got to be done, and the right hon. Gentleman should remember that after the Bolshevik Revolution a great deal was done in Russia in a very short time.

Mr. Hopkinson: As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to making use of international assistance, we are doing it wherever we can. There is already in Africa international co-operation going on between the Powers with colonial possessions, first of all with the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations, and secondly through the Commission for Technical Co-operation south of the Sahara. The same sort of things are going on in the Caribbean area, in the South Pacific and in South-East Asia.
As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the need for carrying out great irrigational and geological surveys, they are being carried out to the limit of our powers of investment. But they all cost a great deal of money. I have seen in the past few weeks plans which have been made in British Guiana. They are not as extensive as we would like them to be. They do not go as far as we would wish them to go, but the hon. Gentleman must remember that our finances are limited both in this country and in the Colonial Territories.
In commending this Bill to the House and in asking that it should be given a Second Reading, I should like to conclude with a quotation from a Member of the Tanganyika Legislative Council, Chief Msabila, who, in the debate on the Tanganyika Ordinance in May of this year, put the case for the transfer of authority from the Overseas Food Corporation to the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation very clearly. I think that what he said embodies the wishes of all who have taken part in this debate. He said:
Whatever hazards or risks there may be in this scheme there should be no question of allowing these open areas to revert to bush. From all over the territory Africans have heard of the success that is being made by

tenant farmers especially at Nachingwea and of course at Urambo as well. This scheme provides Africans with such help as can be given by mechanised farming which is otherwise unavailable to them in their ordinary localities. I feel sure there is every chance of seeing these places developing properly and contributing more towards the economic prosperity of this territory.
That was a speech of Chief Msabila, and I believe that it represents the views of this House.
In asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, I would only say to the right hon. Member for Dundee, West that when we think of the tragic period of the groundnuts scheme hon. Members on this side of the House, as much as hon. Members opposite, are determined that it shall not be a deterrent to further colonial agricultural development but, on the contrary, a spur to greater efforts.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Studholme.]

Committee Tomorrow.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—(Queen's Recommendation signified.)

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to a statutory corporation constituted under the law of Tanganyika of the undertaking of the Overseas Food Corporation, and the dissolution of the last-mentioned Corporation; for the provision of funds under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, in connection with the carrying on of the said undertaking; for the conclusion of fresh arrangements as to the obligations and rights of the last-mentioned Corporation in connection with the Southern Province port and railway; for the remission of interest on certain advances made under the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, to the Colonial Development Corporation; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase (not exceeding one million, seven hundred thousand pounds) in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1950, which may be attributable to provisions of the said Act


of the present Session amending those Acts in relation to any scheme for providing funds required by the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums directed by the said Act of the present Session to be so paid;
(c) the remission of any obligation of the Colonial Development Corporation to make payments under section thirteen of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, in respect of interest on such part of the sums advanced to that Corporation under that Act as may be equivalent to net losses incurred for the purposes of any undertaking of the Corporation which has been or may be abandoned.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Are not we to hear something from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? Ought not he to be here to explain this matter? We have not yet had a speech from him, and it would be rather nice not only to have his presence on the Government Front Bench but to hear something from him on this matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The responsibility is entirely mine in regard to the Financial Resolution, as it was to commend the Bill itself to the House. In suggesting that the House must take me as being adequate, I am taking the example which has always been followed, even when the right hon. Gentleman was himself Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: At that time the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the House always used to ask, in most plaintive and sometimes very critical terms, why the Financial Secretary was not on the Government Front Bench. What was good advice then is certainly good advice now.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the situation is exactly the same. The Financial Secretary was not there in the old days, and his predecessor asked why not. That is exactly what is happening now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

ERROL AIRPORT (SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

9.50 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I feel that I ought to begin by offering my congratulations to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation on the announcement which we read with so much interest and pleasure in the newspapers this morning. Perhaps I ought to express my sorrow at forcing him to celebrate such a happy occasion here in the House tonight, but I can tell him that he could make the occasion a memorable one in Dundee and Perth by giving us a rather more forthcoming answer on the question of air services from Errol than we have had in the seven years that this matter has been before the House and his Ministry.
It is that length of time since Dundee and Perth were promised by one of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors, who belonged to this side of the House, that there would be an air service from Errol within a short space of time. But here we are, still fighting for that very necessary facility.
Dundee and Perth are the only major areas of population in Scotland that are still without what has now become the normal means of communication that such communities expect to have. I shall leave others to speak for the City of Perth, but Dundee is, next to Glasgow, the most important commercial and industrial centre in Scotland. Apart from its traditional industries of shipbuilding, jute, and publishing, it has, since the war, imported a considerable number of very important light industries.
Some of the enterprises are American firms, and these industrialists who have newly come to Dundee are air-minded. They are industrialists who expect to be able to do their business through air travel. Many of them came to Dundee on the understanding that within a short time they would have air facilities from the city, and many of them now feel rather bitter, rather betrayed, because


they have not got them. On their frequent visits to London to do their necessary business they are forced to spend two nights in railway sleepers, if they can get railway sleepers, which are not always easy to book quickly. If they do not like railway sleeper travel they are forced to spend sometimes three days away and a couple of nights in a hotel, simply to do a few hours' business in London.
This air link is long overdue and should be provided. The Corporations of both Dundee and Perth have been bringing constant pressure to bear on this matter, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows. I think it is rather disgraceful that the air link which existed for that area before the war should not now be in existence in 1954. As I understand it, the present position taken up by the Government on this question is that they have issued a policy directive to British European Airways Corporation which does not allow B.E.A.C. to provide the service from Errol Airport.
We have been informed by the Government that they would not stand in the way of a private operator providing a service if such an operator were to come forward. The Minister, on a recent occasion, suggested to the Lord Provosts of Dundee and Perth that they might make an approach, for instance, to the firm of Hunting Clan, Limited. The Lord Provosts of Dundee and Perth took the view, and it is certainly my view, that the provision of this service is the responsibility of B.E.A.C. It is primarily that Corporation's responsibility, and it should have been fulfilled by it a long time ago.
In view of the attitude the Government have taken up on this matter, the Lord Provosts did agree, rather reluctantly, to pursue the policy that was put forward of making an approach to Hunting Clan, Limited. Some contacts have taken place, and I believe that there is to be a meeting in Dundee tomorrow between the Lord Provosts and representatives of this firm, to go fully into the matter. I am told that the firm is prepared to look at the proposition, but I understand that it feels that it may not be a practical proposition for it unless it has the opportunity to extend the service a little farther than Errol. We have been given to understand, since the Government have laid down this policy directive to B.E.A. which makes

them unwilling to provide the service, that in the event of a private operator coming forward B.E.A. would not put anything in the way of that private operator being given these facilities.
This matter, of course, must be dealt with in the public interest by the Air Transport Advisory Council, which occupies a quasi-judicial capacity in this field, but I ask the Minister tonight to give us an assurance that if such an application is made involving a modest extension beyond Errol, then British European Airways will not stand in the way of the provision of services which they themselves are not at the moment in a position to provide.
It ought to be made plain, however, that it is an obligation on the Minister to provide through the B.E.A. or by other means a national air service for Scotland and the other areas for which he is responsible, and it is quite untrue to suggest that Scotland has a national air service as long as such an important area as that of Dundee and Perth is not provided with air facilities. I ask the Minister to give us the assurance that he accepts this responsibility for providing air links between Dundee and Perth by one means or another. He should give an assurance that if the suggestion which is being explored at the moment does not come to fruition he will look again at the directive which he at present imposes on B.E.A. and will see whether B.E.A. could not, if necessary, provide the service.
It has always seemed to me a little silly that B.E.A. should complain, on the one hand, of aircraft flying between Aberdeen and London more than one-third empty and should complain simultaneously about being asked to bring these aircraft down at Errol Airport in order to fill some of the vacant seats. That may make sense to the accountants, but it does not make much sense to the ordinary citizen, who feels that this matter should be considered from the point of view of the provision of a public service.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to bring his influence to bear on the matter in order to provide a service from Errol Airport by one means or another, then, speaking for Dundee Corporation, I can say that they will be willing to give every support and assistance in making that service a success and a permanence.


I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make an effort to break the long dreary deadlock which we have had over Errol Airport and to indicate that, in one way or another, he will bring about this air service which is so long overdue.

9.58 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: The people of the area concerned will be most grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) for raising this subject tonight. I should first like to join him in offering congratulations to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and in saying how delighted I am to hear of this happy event and to see that he has indicated that he is capable of making most important decisions. I hope he will make another decision fairly soon—one about this long-contested area of Scotland.
I remember that in 1946—and the hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to this—the Parliamentary Secretary for Civil Aviation of those days, the Lord Provost of Perth and myself met at Perth Airport to consider a service to that part of Scotland. It was decided that Errol rather than Perth should be the place. Perth was built as an airport and has all the facilities, but, on the other hand, it is not as convenient for Dundee as is Errol. It must be admitted, I am afraid, that if we want to find fog in Perthshire we shall find it in Errol, whereas the Perth Airport is comparatively free of fog; but, at the same time—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Legh.]

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I believe that we have reached a stage when something must be done to cover this area. We used to go from Perth to any part of the world, not directly, of course, but linking up with all the big services of Europe and America. That service must have paid or it would not have been run.
I was hopeful that when B.E.A. and the other big Corporations were set up they would find it possible to include this important area. Although I represent Perth, I realise that Dundee, as a city, is far greater, and, in many ways more important from the business point of

view, than Perth and it is monstrous that in these days it is not possible to go by air to Dundee. I know it is difficult, but I think that B.E.A. should have found some means whereby this area could be covered.
We do not, of course, ask for direct traffic all over the world, but we do ask for services which will link up with world traffic and certainly with traffic to London. To all intents and purposes, traffic passes over this aerodrome between the South and Aberdeen, and, as the hon. Member for Dundee has mentioned, there are complaints that the seats are not all filled. Surely it is possible to work out a system whereby seats can be filled at an intervening station, even if it is a matter of maintaining a station there for the purpose.
I cannot believe that it is beyond the possibility of modern organisation to do this. We feel very strongly that if this area were nearer to the centre of things we should have had this long ago. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not just say, "We sympathise and realise the problem," and all the other things that we have heard so often, but will say that something concrete is to be done. I am convinced that this could be done if the will were there, and I appeal to my hon. Friend with all the strength at my command to back up the plea of the hon. Member for Dundee, East.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). It is a pleasure, perhaps not a very frequent one, to find myself in complete agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire, but we do, at any rate in this matter, see entirely eye to eye, and we make, as it were, an encircling movement on Errol Airport, which lies between our spheres of interest, a very strong plea to the Government seriously to consider the wider interests which are involved here.
Surely it cannot be quite decided by a mere accountancy estimate, which, after all, is a matter of doubt, whether this service will pay or not or pay immediately because, as the hon. and gallant Member


has said and my hon. Friend has also said, the importance to the industrial development of Dundee and to Perth, too, which I am sure has also an industrial future as well as an industrial present, is very great. After all, there are a limited number of places in this island to which civil aviation is of very great importance. The distances are small, but the distance from Dundee, Perth and that area is big enough to make civil aviation something of very great importance from a business point of view.
Surely a way can be found by now in which this big area and this really distant area can be linked up with the general air network of the island. After all, Aberdeen is linked up. It is possible to see aircraft flying over Dundee and Perth, but they have no part or lot in this whole development. There is a very successful service of B.E.A. to Glasgow which is well-conducted and plays its part in getting the Scottish traveller to London, with enormous saving of business time. I therefore add my plea to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
It is an auspicious day for the hon. Gentleman. He must be in the very best of moods. I once had the pleasure of meeting him in a haystack in North Africa, on Christmas Day; that was an auspicious occasion for him, too. Today it is an even more important one for him, but we certainly look forward to a very forthcoming answer from him.

10.6 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): Perhaps I may start by thanking hon. and right hon. Members for their generosity in the personal wishes that they have extended to me tonight, for which I am extremely grateful. I ask the House to believe that I am certainly not in an uncharitable frame of mind, although I have, perhaps, been kept here rather longer than I should have wished.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) reminded me of an earlier meeting. In remembering that, I remind him that he was Minister of Food at the time and that he ate half my Christmas pudding.

Mr. Strachey: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I was a flight lieutenant at the time, in North Africa.

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive my saying that it was as a result of eating half my Christmas pudding that he became Minister of Food. I ask hon. Members also to realise that if they are suspicious in some way of my approach, my intentions are wholly honourable.
We are certainly grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and his neighbouring colleagues for having given the opportunity on this occasion to discuss in public what, I fully realise, has long been a subject of very real importance to the people of Perth and Dundee. My right hon. Friend is also most anxious that there should be the widest possible understanding of this problem and that his position in the matter should be clearly appreciated.
Let me at once express my real sympathy for the aspirations of all those for whom hon. Members have been speaking tonight and add my personal tribute to their pertinacious air-mindedness. It is true, as the hon. Member for Dundee. East said at the outset, that before the war there was an air service between London and Perth, to Scone airfield. This service did not, however, provide a daily return, and the statements which I have seen that the service was profitable are in no way supported by any facts which I have been able to discover.
I understand that Perth and Dundee were encouraged in the early post-war period to hope that an air service would be provided by B.E.A., because it figured in B.E.A.'s long-term development plans which were produced in 1946 and 1947. It was in relation to these plans that my Department selected Errol Airport, which would serve both Perth and Dundee. However, in 1948, when B.E.A., as part of a drastic retrenchment, subsequently curtailed its existing long-term plans for internal services, the hopes of the people of Dundee and Perth began to be dashed. But ever since then the local authorities concerned, supported very ably by the Scottish Advisory Council for Civil Air Transport, have been pressing for the opening of scheduled services from Errol.
As far as I can ascertain, at no time, and certainly not while I have held my office, have the local authorities been


given any ground to suppose that B.E.A. would be encouraged to provide these services irrespective of cost and against its own commercial judgment. More recently, since I have been in the Department, both my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies and I have had several meetings with representatives from Dundee and Perth and of the Scottish Advisory Council, and most recently, as the hon. Member said, in July, when representatives of the Scottish Home Department, Scottish local authorities, B.E.A. and Scottish Members of Parliament all came to the House to see my right hon. Friend.
It appears to me that the arrangement which has been most favoured, at any rate recently, is for a 20 minutes' stop at Errol on the London—Edinburgh—Aberdeen route that B.E.A. operated daily for two years until this winter, when the frequency was reduced to two services a week.
Here I must say that this problem with which we are dealing tonight is not one entirely peculiar to this particular locality. It rests broadly on the fact that although a number of areas in the United Kingdom feel that they would benefit by scheduled air services, the general aim both of British European Airways and the independent companies is obviously to refrain from operating routes which in their commercial judgment are not likely to pay their way In this they are no different from any other wisely conducted commercial organisation.
There are two ways in which the aspirations of the protagonists of these schemes can be realised. Either an independent company could run a service or else B.E.A. could run the service itself. I understand it is felt locally that the service should be operated by British European Airways and hon. Members have expressed that view tonight. On these grounds, among others, that if it should prove uneconomic then B.E.A., unlike an independent company or operator, could be restrained from withdrawing. This tends to bear out the general belief that such a service could not operate at a profit.
But I think there are more conclusive facts than this. In the summer of 1950, B.E.A. did establish a daily service at Scone Airport between Glasgow and

Perth. After a few weeks the experiment was cancelled for lack of traffic. On an average, fewer than 10 passengers a week used the service, and on that occasion B.E.A.—and I think quite rightly—were not restrained from ceasing this service.

Mr. Thomson: Is it not a fact that that particular service did not connect up with London, and that the real desire and demand was for a service between Dundee and Perth and London?

Mr. Profumo: That may be so. I am trying to draw conclusions from several arguments, and this is one of the big problems we have to face here at any rate in the eyes of those who understand commercial air operations because of their experience. If I may take another example, in 1951 approval was provisionally given for Scottish Airlines to operate a service, Aberdeen—Errol—Edinburgh—Prestwick
—Belfast. This service never operated and I can only presume that this was also for financial reasons. I need hardly add that my right hon. Friend has no control whatsoever over the commercial decisions of any independent airlines and, therefore, if we are to have an influence—and the plea this evening is that my Department should do what it can to help—it must be with British European Airways.
I want to take the hon. Member up on one point which he made two or three times during the course of his interesting speech. The expression he used was that a directive had been imposed on British European Airways. He said that the policy directive issued prevented it from operating a service. I want to make it absolutely clear that my right hon. Friend has issued no directive to B.E.A. on this subject. Indeed—and I must try to make this an extremely important point, because it seems to me to be the crux of the whole situation—there is no provision in any Act of Parliament for the issue of a specific directive whereby the Corporation could be instructed to undertake this or any other services.
Furthermore, my right hon. Friend could not on the one hand urge B.E.A. as he, like his predecessor, is doing, to take all possible steps to reduce its losses and, on the other hand, press it to add to its existing network yet another route which it regarded as unremunerative. It is true that by virtue of its monopoly, British


European Airways has a public duty to perform, but it is equally true—and it is equally important to bear in mind—that my right hon. Friend has a duty to the taxpayers and this duty is to do all in his power to see that the substantial annual deficit of the Corporation for which the general public pay, is reduced and eliminated as soon as may be.
Hon. Members will therefore appreciate that my right hon. Friend must to a considerable extent leave this problem to the commercial judgment of B.E.A. As I have already mentioned, he has given the matter the closest and most sympathetic consideration, but B.E.A. does not believe that enough new all-the-year round traffic could be created at Errol to compensate for the additional costs of inserting a stop there on their Aberdeen-Edinburgh-London routes. There are many costs to be met—station costs, flying costs, landing fees and so on. A stop on the Edinburgh-Aberdeen sector would also be a further discouragement to through traffic to Aberdeen and beyond.
British European Airways has also considered making Errol a stop on the Glasgow-Edinburgh route, but regards such a service as unsatisfactory. It calculates that at the lowest estimate the additional net loss to the Corporation resulting from an air service to Errol would be £5,500 a year. It feels unable to accept another Scottish service which would lead to an increase in its deficit. Now let me come to the question of a service being operated by an independent operator—

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Before my hon. Friend leaves that side of the question, is the principle of swings and roundabouts not possible in B.E.A.? Surely there are lines that pay which could be made to support the lines which do not pay and at which a big Corporation of a national size ought to be looking?

Mr. Profumo: What my hon. and gallant Friend says is true, but the trouble is that the roundabouts will not balance the swings, the swings are largely in Scotland, and the northern routes are responsible for a large part of the present deficit of about £1 million a year in the accounts of B.E.A. I appreciate that B.E.A. has a public responsibility, but while it is losing £1 milion a year we cannot expect

a man like Lord Douglas, who is responsible for this great Corporation, to add another unremunerative route while the swings do not balance the roundabouts.
There remains the question of the independent operators. Here the hon. Member for Dundee, East asked that there should be no objection in the way of any independent operator who would like to run this service. I can assure him that B.E.A. has no objection to an independent company operating a route to Errol, provided of course that it does not materially divert traffic from the existing network of the Corporation. This is naturally one of the criteria which are observed by the Air Transport Advisory Council in considering applications of this nature. At the same time I can say categorically that my right hon. Friend would be very willing to consider any recommendations from the Air Transport Advisory Council that an independent company should operate a service to Errol.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of approaching an independent company. He may recollect that at the meeting to which he came in July my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies suggested that my Department—and indeed representatives from Dundee and Perth—might approach an independent operator to see if we could get them interested. I should like hon. Members to know that, in accordance with this undertaking, I myself approached an independent company and provided them with a memorandum in the hope of interesting them in including Errol in their existing planned network. I am afraid that they were not able to accept on the spot, though the possibility of later development was not ruled out entirely.
I can only assure hon. Gentlemen who tare interested that I am delighted to hear that representatives of the two cities are considering meeting members of this independent company, and I hope very much that they may be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion. If there is anything we can do to help in these discussions, I shall be only too glad to try to do so. Of course we cannot go against the existing terms of reference of the Air Transport Advisory Council without


coming to this House for new instructions but, within that framework, I be-live that if we can help, we should certainly do so.
I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Members that this matter is one which has been considered from its very origin by my Department and successive Ministers with the sympathy and care which it has justified. We must all look forward to the time when these two great Scottish cities will enjoy aerial communications with other great industrial centres of our island and, of course, with the Metropolis itself. I believe that this can be most speedily and securely brought about by ensuring that this still new medium of public transport pays its way at the earliest possible period of its expansion, because it is only by paying its way, by eliminating its deficit in the case of B.E.A., that we can hope to include a very large number of centres which would like to have air transport. If it is all maintained by subsidy, I genuinely believe that that will hinder considerably the development of air transportation lines which hon. Members want so much.
I hope that our minds in the Department are always open to any suggestions. We sympathetically understand this particular case. If there is anything which is within our power to help, we will certainly give that help, but I have wanted this opportunity this evening to explain that in this matter my right hon. Friend must be either in the hands of British European Airways—and I think that it will be agreed that they must maintain their commercial judgment—or

in the hands of independent companies over which we have no control whatsoever. If the people who support this project in Dundee can persuade any commercial operator that there is a future in it, I do not believe operators would be slow in taking advantage of the opportunities offered there. I thank the hon. Member for Dundee, East and his colleagues for raising this matter. I hope that I have done something to assure him that the matter is constantly studied and that we must have hope for the future.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In the event of an independent private operating firm coming in, could the Minister and his Department assist in the reconstitution of Errol Airport, which is very largely in ruins?

Mr. Profumo: I am very glad to answer that, but first I should not like hon. Members to think that we can assist with negotiations with an air company. The Minister cannot come in until a recommendation is put to him by the Air Transport Council. As to the condition of Errol Airport, I think that I can give an undertaking that if any company wants to run a service through Errol we will provide the minimum facilities that are needed and we would expect the local authorities also to pull their weight. It would not be by our withholding the minimum necessary facilities that an air service would be held up.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Ten o'Clock.